ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked-

Haiti

Caroline Dinenage: What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Haiti.

Andrew Mitchell: Although the number of people in camps in Haiti has fallen by half to 800,000 since last July, Haiti continues to face serious humanitarian challenges.

Caroline Dinenage: The President of Haiti famously said that it would take a thousand trucks a thousand days to clear the devastation, but the people do not have a thousand days, because they are suffering disease and crime, and they do not have a thousand trucks. What more can the international community do to tackle the problem?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to identify the scale of the damage and of what is required to put it right. We are working directly on tackling the threat of cholera, and working through the UN and the World Bank on some of the more serious aspects of what needs to happen to bring the relief that is required .

Mark Lazarowicz: I advise you, Mr Speaker, and the House, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the shadow Secretary of State, cannot be here today because she is on jury service.
	As well direct assistance to Haiti, which we support, Britain has contributed more than $100 million through multilateral organisations such as the World Bank and the European Union, as the Secretary of State said. Does he agree that it is important for the UK to continue to make substantial contributions to such organisations if the world community is to provide the scale of long-term support for reconstruction that Haiti requires?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right to put it that way. Britain was a key part of the immediate, emergency relief in the aftermath of those dreadful events in Haiti. There was generous support from across Britain through the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, and we made a number of specific surgical interventions towards the end of last year, including the one to which I referred. Britain is not in the lead on Haiti-this is very much an American, French and Canadian lead-but we are, as he explained, giving strong support through international and multilateral agencies, including the UN and the World Bank.

Mark Lazarowicz: We certainly welcome the fact that British aid is helping the poor and most vulnerable in Haiti. We support that, but unfortunately, it is a different story just 100 miles north of Haiti in the Turks and Caicos Islands, to which the Department for International Development has just agreed to write an unprecedented loan of £160 million, which is much greater than any previous support for a British overseas territory. Surely the priority for DFID in the Caribbean should be meeting the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable in places such as Haiti, so may I ask the Secretary of State-

Mr Speaker: Order. The question must relate to Haiti and only to Haiti.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman refers to problems some miles away from Haiti. However, if I may say so, he has a bit of a brass neck. We inherited a terrible mess in the area not far from Haiti to which he refers, and it is thanks to the brilliant work conducted by the Minister of State that the British taxpayer has now given a guarantee, which hopefully will allow the place not far from Haiti to sort out its problems without further cost to the British taxpayer.

Mr Speaker: We now know more about Haiti and some miles away.

India

Philip Davies: What his Department's policy is on providing aid to India; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Mitchell: From now on in India, we will focus our support on three of the poorest states. Our programme will change to reflect the importance of the role of the private sector and private enterprise.

Philip Davies: India spends $36 billion a year on defence and $750 million on a space programme. It has one of the fastest-growing economies in the world and is developing its own overseas aid programme. Given that we must cut public expenditure in this country, will the Secretary of State accept that many of my constituents will think that such aid to India is now unjustifiable?

Andrew Mitchell: That is why our programme in India is in transition, why we will focus on three of the poorest states in the country and why, over the next four years, up to half the programme will transition into pro-poor private sector investment. That is the right way for us to position our development work in the partnership with India, which is of course much wider than development, and which the Prime Minister very significantly re-energised in his major visit last year.

Barry Gardiner: I congratulate the Secretary of State on continuing with the £280 million each year to India. That is vital given that India has a quarter of the world's poorest people living within its borders. How does he intend to focus the aid in those three states, particularly with regard to the health of young women?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right that there are more poor people in India than in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. He is right, too, that we should focus on the poorest areas, and particularly on the role of girls and women. Over future years, we expect to be able to assist in ensuring that up to 4 million women have access to income through micro-finance and through focusing particularly on livelihoods. We will also support, of course, the strong programme on education in India. About 60 million children have been got into school over the last four or five years, which is a tremendous tribute to the work of the Indian Government, but it would not have been possible without the intervention of aid and support from Britain and elsewhere.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is worth recording that to lift the poorest people in India out of poverty by $1 a day would cost $166 billion a year, so it is appropriate to continue our transitional arrangements with India? The International Development Committee will visit India next month and we will want to see how DFID's relationship with the country, albeit with a relatively small amount in comparison with the challenge of the problem, can deliver an accelerated reduction of poverty there.

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for that comment and also to the Select Committee itself for going to look with care at development in India and the operation of our programme there. He accurately identifies the scale of need. It is worth noting that the number of the Indian population living on less than 80p a day is 7.5 times the total population of Britain. That puts in context the basic nature of this need and shows why Britain's partnership is so important.

Eilidh Whiteford: Is the Secretary of State aware of the claims made by the Jubilee Debt Campaign and Jubilee Scotland that the work of the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department has been funding work in India that is undermining development and human rights? I declare an interest in that I was until recently a board member of Jubilee Scotland. I ask the Secretary of State to investigate and report back to the House on that matter.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady will have heard what has been said about the Export Credits Guarantee Department-that it is at the moment being looked at carefully to ensure that it supports our development aims. She might also like to look at the trade White Paper published last week, which specifically addresses the role of the ECGD in development and in supporting British exports overseas.

Friends of Yemen

Rehman Chishti: On what date he expects the next Friends of Yemen meeting to take place; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Pritchard: On what date he expects the next Friends of Yemen meeting to take place; and if he will make a statement.

Alan Duncan: We expect the next Friends of Yemen meeting to take place in Riyadh at the end of March. I visited Saudi Arabia last weekend and was afterwards with the Foreign Secretary in Yemen. We are continuing to work with both countries to agree a firm date for the next meeting.

Rehman Chishti: Given the turmoil in the region, what is the Minister's assessment of the situation in Yemen and of the Friends of Yemen process? How will it stop the state failing and assist in an orderly succession and economic progress following the commitment by the President not to stand at the next election?

Alan Duncan: Recent events demonstrate more than ever the importance of the Friends of Yemen process to prevent state failure in that country. I welcome President Saleh's speech on 2 February, committing to follow the constitution of Yemen and not to seek re-election after 2013. Through the Friends of Yemen process, we will work to support political reform and the right of all Yemenis to participate legitimately and democratically in their political future.

Mark Pritchard: Is it not the case that a secure and prosperous Yemen is very much in the UK national security interest? Will my right hon. Friend inform the House what new measures have been put in place to ensure that those objectives are delivered?

Alan Duncan: We have seen substantial progress on many fronts since the New York Friends of Yemen meeting, and I particularly highlight the Yemeni Government's adherence to an International Monetary Fund financial reform programme and progress made towards completing their five-year development plan for poverty reduction. We are close to establishing a multi-donor trust fund for Yemen. The Riyadh Friends of Yemen meeting will continue the support of Yemen's friends for political and economic reform in the pursuit of democracy, stability and prosperity.

Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome the Minister's visit to Yemen last week. I ask him to put one item on the agenda of the Friends of Yemen meeting-namely, the redevelopment and refurbishment of the Aden hospital, which has been ongoing for a number of years. Good health facilities would be of huge benefit to local people in what is one of the poorest countries on earth.

Alan Duncan: We do not tend to get involved in large infrastructure projects, but health in Yemen is at the top of our agenda. I well appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's close personal association with Aden, and I undertake to give the matter a special personal look.

Tom Clarke: Although I acknowledge the link between poverty and security, not least in Yemen, may I invite the Minister of State to confirm that DFID sees addressing poverty among the poorest people in the poorest countries as its supreme challenge and as being at its heart?

Alan Duncan: Yes, poverty reduction is at the core of everything that the Department does, but I urge the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate that no fragile country has ever achieved a single millennium development goal. Preventing state failure is much less costly than dealing with a failed state afterwards.

Palestine

Robin Walker: What development support his Department provides to the Palestinian Authority and to Israeli non-governmental organisations working in the west bank.

Alan Duncan: We provide financial and technical assistance to the Palestinian Authority. In this financial year, our support will total £31.1 million. DFID also co-funds the UK conflict pool, which supports five Israeli human rights NGOs operating in the west bank.

Robin Walker: I recently took part in a delegation to Jerusalem and the occupied Palestinian territories of the west bank, and I refer the House to my related entry in the register. During the visit, we met many Israeli human rights organisations and NGOs involved in the peace process, some of which receive financial support from the UK Government. All of them were concerned at moves by elements of the nationalist right to crack down on and embarrass organisations in receipt of overseas funding, no matter how legitimate-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but this is Question Time.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend refers to a proposed panel of inquiry on the Israeli side, to look into the funding of its NGOs. Our ambassador to Tel Aviv discussed the issue with the Israeli ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, shortly after the Knesset vote on the issue. Officials raised the matter with one of the two members of the Knesset who had pressed for such funding investigation. We do not want such investigations to impede the legitimate work of NGOs in the west bank and elsewhere in the Palestinian territories.

Richard Burden: In light of the Minister's reply, does he share the concern expressed by Norwegian Foreign Minister Støre about the Israeli Foreign Minister's comments, which appear to delegitimise the work of brave NGOs such as B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights? It is important that the voices of those organisations, which are Israeli Jewish but express a different view from the Israeli Government, should continue to be heard.

Alan Duncan: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. We are watching closely the treatment of the five NGOs concerned and we will do our utmost to ensure that they remain free to do their good work, even though some of their conclusions might disagree with the those of the Israeli Government.

Robert Halfon: Is the Minister aware that an increasing amount of aid to the Palestinian territories ends up in the hands of extremists and is used for extremist purposes? Will he take steps to stop that and ensure that aid gets to the Palestinians who need it most?

Alan Duncan: I do not share my hon. Friend's conclusion. We are very careful how we spend our money in the occupied Palestinian territories and have done our utmost to support the legitimate government of Salam Fayyad with, I think, great success. We would abhor any money falling into the hands of extremists, and we do everything possible to ensure that such an accusation can never be verified or proved valid.

Rushanara Ali: The Minister will know that many in the House and beyond continue to be deeply concerned about the desperate situation in Gaza. What efforts are the Government making to ensure that Israel lifts the blockade of Gaza, which leaves many dependent on UN aid? Given the situation in Egypt, will the Minister update us on the position at the Rafah crossing, and on what action will be taken to ensure that humanitarian aid can be delivered to those who need it most?

Alan Duncan: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and all Ministers make our views clear on this matter. Prime Minister Netanyahu and Tony Blair announced a package covering the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem on 4 February. Gaza measures included new reconstruction project approvals and a timetable for exports. We have welcomed that, but implementation in practice will be the key.

Simon Hughes: The Department's work on conflict prevention and resolution is much appreciated. Can the Minister assure the House that this work in the middle east-Palestine, Israel and elsewhere-will be continued in the forthcoming years, and that the budget for it will be protected, and perhaps grown, even given the wider budget obligations?

Alan Duncan: I absolutely share the views of my right hon. Friend. This is a crucial part of DFID's agenda, and essential to all the work we are doing in such a sensitive part of the world, so the answer is an unequivocal yes.

UN Women Agency

Sharon Hodgson: What plans he has to provide support for the new UN Women agency; and if he will make a statement.

Tony Baldry: What plans he has to provide support for the new UN Women agency; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Mitchell: The coalition Government strongly support the new UN Women agency, which has the chance to make a hugely positive impact on the lives of millions of girls and women in the developing world. I look forward to receiving its strategic results plan, which will allow us to decide on funding by the British taxpayer for future years.

Sharon Hodgson: I thank the Secretary of State for that encouraging response, and for the part he and his colleagues have played in the establishment of UN Women so far. When does he anticipate he will come to a decision on funding for UN Women?

Andrew Mitchell: We expect to see a strategic plan from UN Women probably in June this year, and as soon as we see it, we will be able to make decisions about British support for the agency. I am sure the hon. Lady and other Members will understand that I want to see the plan first, before committing hard-earned British taxpayers' money to it.

Tony Baldry: From the experience of the many visits my right hon. Friend has made across the world, does he agree that very often it is women who are the agents for change in development? Just as UNICEF has helped to support the focus on children, so it is to be hoped that UN Women can help support women as agents for change and development.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot even begin to address development without realising the centrality of girls and women in every aspect of what we do, and we share his aspirations for the role of UN Women within the international structures.

Sri Lanka

Virendra Sharma: What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement.

Alan Duncan: The number of internally displaced people in camps in Sri Lanka has declined from 300,000 in 2009 to 18,000 today. DFID has provided £13.5 million in humanitarian assistance since 2008, but our bilateral aid to Sri Lanka will cease in March, except for a new demining programme valued at £3 million.

Virendra Sharma: Among those affected by the floods are many people who were earlier displaced by the conflict and who had recently returned to their homes only to be displaced again. Even before the floods, these people had been struggling to access much-needed protection and assistance because of Government restrictions on humanitarian organisations' access to the return areas. What pressure is the Minister putting on the Government to allow humanitarian organisations to have access to the former conflict areas, so that the suffering people there can be given the full help they desperately need?

Alan Duncan: We will continue to press the Sri Lankan Government to grant access to such areas for humanitarian purposes. More than 1 million people have been affected by the flooding. We looked very closely into the sort of support we should give, but the most immediate needs are covered by Sri Lankan authorities and other donors, so we are working principally through multilateral organisations to give the help that is needed.

James Gray: The United Nations estimates that some 90% of Sri Lanka's rice crop will be destroyed by the recent flooding. That makes the Government's decision to stop all aid with effect from March quite worrying, because on top of all the troubles in that unfortunate country there is a very real risk of food security problems or starvation in the years to come. What is the Department prepared to do about that?

Alan Duncan: I urge my hon. Friend to appreciate the distinction between a continuing bilateral programme and humanitarian aid, which can be given as needs must. We will continue to review the humanitarian needs of Sri Lanka and work through multilateral organisations as required.

Sub-Saharan Africa (Midwives)

Daniel Poulter: What support his Department is providing for the training of midwives and maternal health specialists in sub-Saharan Africa.

Stephen O'Brien: With more than half of maternal deaths globally occurring in sub-Saharan Africa, DFID funds the training of midwives and other health care workers through various channels- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the Minister. Far too many private conversations are taking place. It is the height of discourtesy for Members to witter away, including from the Government Back Benches, when the Minister is trying to be heard.

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful, Mr Speaker.
	DFID bilateral programmes directly support national health sector plans of partner countries and non-government organisation-implemented projects, and give support through multilateral organisations such as the World Bank and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Daniel Poulter: I am sure the Minister is aware of data collected for the World Health Organisation that show disparity between the provision of maternal health services in more rural areas and in the slightly better-funded urban areas in many countries in Africa? Will he outline what the Department will do to help to address that problem?

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that important disparity. The UK Government recently announced the framework for results on reproductive, maternal and neonatal health, which directly seeks to address how that disparity can be narrowed. I have seen for myself in northern Nigeria how DFID supports midwifery services, with a scheme to train 200 midwives who are then posted to rural facilities, which is vital to ensure that the disparity is addressed.

Anas Sarwar: I am proud to support Save the Children's "No child born to die" campaign, which seeks to make more life-saving vaccines available to the world's poorest and most vulnerable children. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation summit is to take place in the UK later this year, and Save the Children is lobbying for the Prime Minister to represent the UK at that summit. What steps will the Minister to take to make sure that the Government are represented at the highest level?

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right; the Save the Children campaign is one that we follow closely. The GAVI conference will be hosted in London and we can confirm that it will have the full support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to show our commitment.

Official Development Assistance

Michael McCann: When he expects to bring forward legislative proposals in respect of the 0.7 per cent. target for official development assistance.

Andrew Mitchell: The coalition Government have set out how we will meet our commitment to spend 0.7% of national income as aid from 2013, and will enshrine that commitment in law as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

Michael McCann: Some may be reassured by the Secretary of State's answer and some may even be convinced by it, but I can tell him about a group of people who are not: his own loyal staff at DFID in East Kilbride who in August 2010 were told that there would be no mass loss of jobs from the Department, but last Thursday were told that a third of their jobs would be cut. Is it not the case that when this Government meet commitments, the truth and their commitments are strangers?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that all Departments across Whitehall are having to make economies because of the coalition Government's dreadful economic inheritance from his party. DFID is not immune from the cuts and will see reductions of some 33% in its administrative spend. I had the opportunity of speaking to all the staff at Abercrombie house just a few days ago to make sure that that was understood.

Duncan Hames: I applaud the Government's commitment to aid, but can the Secretary of State confirm that climate change adaptation funding, beyond the fast-start finance up to 2012, will be additional to the overseas development assistance pledge?

Andrew Mitchell: As part of the Government's fulfilment of our historic pledge, we have set out specifically how climate change funding will rise as part of the overall budget.

Jim Dobbin: Will the Secretary of State congratulate the Government of Kenya, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation and all its funding partners, which include the United Kingdom, on the roll-out of their programme of pneumococcal vaccine on Monday? It will save thousands of children in Kenya and across Africa. We hope that it will be a rolling programme across the developing world.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to underline the tremendous success of the vaccination programme. When we announce the results of the multilateral aid review, we shall show how Britain will give a real impetus to vaccination. As the Under-Secretary has just said, we shall host the GAVI conference in London in June and it will be opened by the Prime Minister.

Aid Transfers

Chris White: What progress his Department is making on transferring aid from middle-income states to developing countries in greatest need.

Andrew Mitchell: We have a clear responsibility to ensure that we target our aid where it is most needed and where it will have the greatest impact. I will shortly announce to the House the outcome of our major root and branch review of bilateral aid, which looked in detail at each country.

Chris White: Although I strongly support the Government's decision to stop aid to China, can my right hon. Friend explain what impact that will have on his ability to engage with China on development issues?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to say that the coalition made it clear on day one that we would end all aid to China and Russia, but we need to have a powerful and reinvigorated partnership with China on development issues, not only in the areas where we share deep concerns, such as on freeing up the trading system and on climate, but in working in third countries. For example, Britain is working with China now in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on a major infrastructure roads programme. We are doing that work together and it is extremely effective and successful.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-

Engagements

John Mann: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 February.

David Cameron: I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the following servicemen who have lost their lives in Afghanistan: Private Lewis Hendry from 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment and Private Conrad Lewis from 4th Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who died last Wednesday; and Lance Corporal Kyle Marshall from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who died on Monday. They were all brave and dedicated soldiers who were serving in Afghanistan for the safety and security of the British people. Our thoughts and deepest condolences should be with their families, their loved ones and their colleagues. They will never be forgotten.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

John Mann: Like other Members, I associate myself and my constituents with the Prime Minister's tribute to our fallen heroes.
	One man who also served his country is my constituent Doug Hunt who, with his wife Gladys, lives in Westwood care home, which is currently being fattened for privatisation by increasing its fees by £400-not £400 a year, not £400 a month, but an increase of £400 a week. Would the Prime Minister like to answer Mr and Mrs Hunt, who are listening now, show some leadership and have these Tory cuts removed, or would he like to justify these increases to Mr and Mrs Hunt?

David Cameron: I will certainly look at the individual case that the hon. Gentleman raises, but far from cutting the money that is going into social care, we have increased by £2 billion the money going into adult social care because we know how important it is. It is not right to draw a false distinction between care homes run by local authorities and those run by the private sector. There is good practice and bad practice in both, but as we have seen in our hospitals in recent days, we need a change of culture in caring for our elderly to make sure they have the dignity that they deserve in old age.

Mark Lancaster: My six-year-old constituent, Millie d'Cruz, is one of just 17 people in the United Kingdom to be diagnosed with the rare genetic disorder, MLD-metachromatic leukodystrophy. Unfortunately, the family must try to raise £200,000 to send her for treatment in Holland, even though the treatment may be available here in the UK. Can the Prime Minister look into the case and ensure that the family get the support that they deserve?

David Cameron: I am happy to do as my hon. Friend asks. A big change is taking place in medicine, where far more interest needs to be directed at genetic data and genetically inherited diseases, as this is how we will reduce disease and illness in the future. We are looking, for instance, at value-based pricing, whereby we try to share between companies developing new treatments and the taxpayer the cost of developing them, which could be a good way forward to make sure we get more treatments to more people more quickly.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Private Lewis Hendry from 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, Private Conrad Lewis from 4th Battalion the Parachute Regiment, and Lance Corporal Kyle Marshall from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. All these men showed extraordinary bravery and dedication. Our thoughts are with them and their families and friends as they grieve for them.
	We now know that inflation is rising, growth has stalled and an extra 66,000 young people are out of work. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks his strategy is working?

David Cameron: Of course today's unemployment figures are a matter of great regret, particularly in terms of higher youth unemployment, but I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that youth unemployment has been a problem in this country for well over a decade, in good years and in bad. The level of youth unemployment actually went up by 40% under the last Government-an extra 270,000 young people unemployed. What we have to do is sort out all the things that help young people get back into work. There is a welfare system that does not help you get work, an education system that does not prepare you for work and back-to-work programmes that, under the last Government, simply did not work.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me what is happening in our economy. We are no longer linked with Greece and Ireland and those countries in the danger zone. We have a situation where market interest rates have fallen. Our credit rating is secured. There are 218,000 more people in work than there were a year ago. Above all, what I would say to him is what the Governor of the Bank of England said this morning:
	"There has to be a plan A... This country needs fiscal consolidation to deal with the biggest budget deficit in peacetime".

Edward Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman says that we are doing so well compared with the rest of Europe, but we were the only major European economy in the last quarter of 2010 that had no economic growth and where growth went into reverse. Let me ask him specifically about youth unemployment. His own former chief economist said this morning that he thought that they were wrong to scrap the education maintenance allowance, wrong to scrap the future jobs fund and that they should have been building on it. I know that he likes to make an industry out of saying that the future jobs fund was the wrong thing to do, but what did he say before the election? He went to Liverpool and said that it was "a good scheme" and that he had been "inspired" by what he saw. Why does he not listen to young people and their families up and down the country and take real action to help them?

David Cameron: First, the economist from the Cabinet Office whom the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted also said this:
	"I would not excuse the previous Government on this; they failed to wake up to the problem early enough."
	What matters is whether work programmes are effective. I now have the figures for the flexible new deal, which was the absolute centrepiece of the last Government's approach to this matter. Let me give the House of Commons the figures, because I think that they show what has been going wrong. Of the 279,000 people who took part in the flexible new deal, how many got a long-term job? The answer is 3,800. It is not good enough. What we have been doing on welfare, education and back-to-work programmes is not good enough. All those things need to change.

Edward Miliband: What we actually discovered today is that the right hon. Gentleman's great new Work programme, which he is trumpeting as the answer to all the nation's problems, will have 250,000 fewer opportunities than were provided under the last Labour Government. We know that his view of social mobility is auctioning off a few City internships at the Conservative party ball, but frankly he is going to have to do better than that. The truth is that he is betraying a whole generation of young people. He is trebling tuition fees, abolishing the education maintenance allowance and abolishing the future jobs fund. Why does he not change course and help those young people who need help up and down this country?

David Cameron: First, let me answer the right hon. Gentleman on the Work programme, because this is important. For the last 20 years, in this House and elsewhere, people have been arguing that we should use the savings from future benefits and invest them now in helping people to get a job, and for 20 years the Treasury has said no, including the time when he and the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) were sitting in the Treasury advising. Now, for the first time, under this coalition Government, we will be spending the future benefits in order to get people training and into work. That will include, in some cases, spending up to £14,000 to get people, particularly those on incapacity benefit, a job.
	The figures the Leader of the Opposition gives are wrong. The Work programme is the biggest back-to-work scheme this country has seen since the 1930s. Instead of being cash-limited and patchy, like his schemes, it has no limit and can help as many people as possible from all of those different categories. He mentions internships. I did a little research into his: he did one for Tony Benn and one for the deputy leader of the Labour party. No wonder he is so left-wing, so politically correct and so completely ineffective.

Nicholas Soames: rose-

Hon. Members: More!

Mr Speaker: Order. I want, and the House wants, to hear Mr Nicholas Soames.

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that deregulation is an extremely powerful weapon in economic reform? Is he aware that the programme is not proceeding fast enough, and will he take personal charge to see that the whole process is hurried up?

David Cameron: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the problems is the huge amount of regulations-particularly coming out of Europe-that we need to put a stop to before they are introduced. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is doing an excellent job with his one in, one out scheme, so that another regulation cannot be introduced until one has been scrapped, but I think we probably have to go further and faster and be more ambitious in scrapping the regulation that is holding back job creation in our country.

Nick Raynsford: Can I invite the Prime Minister to look ahead to the summer of 2012, when we will welcome millions of overseas visitors to this country? What does he think will be the abiding images that they take home with them? Will they be images of a brilliantly, successfully staged Olympic games? Will it be a fond memory of the warm welcome to London extended by the newly elected Mayor Livingstone? Or will it be a memory of the shocking images of homeless people all over the streets of London because of his Government's economic failure and harsh housing benefit cuts?

David Cameron: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman could not keep a straight face when backing Labour's candidate for Mayor, but I have to say that, if the Member who represents Greenwich cannot speak up for the Olympics, there really is a problem. This is going to be a great festival, and something that everyone who comes to our country is going to enjoy-and I look forward to welcoming them alongside Mayor Boris Johnson.

Julian Smith: This weekend, hundreds of people will arrive in Ripon to celebrate winning the Government's pilot for super-fast broadband in North Yorkshire, and to work out how we can connect the rest of the county in the years ahead. What message would my right hon. Friend give to delegates about the Government's commitment to rural broadband?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have made a big commitment to that, with £530 million going into broadband investment, and that is absolutely vital, particularly for rural parts of the country, because we do not want them to be cut off from the information superhighway. I hope my hon. Friend will advise them about the opportunities of super-fast broadband-the business creation and job creation that it can mean right across this country.

Edward Miliband: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he is happy with his flagship policy on forestry?

David Cameron: The short answer to that is no. As I have said before in this House, it is a consultation that has been put forward, and we have had a range of interesting responses to it, but what is important is that we should be making sure that, whatever happens, we increase access to our forests, we increase biodiversity and we do not make the mistake that was made under the last Government, where they sold forests with no access rights at all.

Edward Miliband: Even the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate the irony: he, the guy who made the tree the symbol of the Conservative party, flogging them off up and down this country. He says that they are consulting on the policy; they are actually consulting on how to flog off the forests, not on whether to flog off the forests. Is the Prime Minister now saying that he might drop the policy completely?

David Cameron: I would have thought that the whole point of a consultation is that you put forward some proposals, you listen to the answer and then you make a decision. I know it is a totally alien concept, but what is so complicated about that?

Edward Miliband: Everybody knows that the right hon. Gentleman is going to have drop this ludicrous policy. Let me give him the chance to do so. Nobody voted for the policy; 500,000 people have signed a petition against it. When he gets up at the Dispatch Box, why does he say not that he is postponing the sale, but that he is cancelling it?

David Cameron: I think, once again, that the right hon. Gentleman wrote the questions before he listened to the answers, and I think the bandwagon has just hit a bit of a tree.

Bernard Jenkin: May I take this opportunity to inform my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the House that the Public Administration Committee is today launching an inquiry into the big society? Does he share my hope that as we consider things such as volunteering, promoting charitable giving and decentralising public services, we will receive positive evidence from all parts of the House?

David Cameron: I do, and I am sure that, like everything that my hon. Friend does, it will be wholly supportive of the Government's position. He makes a very good point, which is that the big society is about more than just volunteering or support for charitable groups; it is about opening up public services, devolving power to the lowest level, and giving people the opportunity to play a greater part in the lives of their communities. I would have thought that people from across the House would recognise that the big state approach has failed and that it is time for something different.

Ben Bradshaw: Is the Prime Minister's upheaval of the health service resulting in longer or shorter waiting times?

David Cameron: We want to see waiting times come down; that is the whole point of the reforms. I think that anyone who has watched what has been happening over the past few days, where we have seen the standards of care that some elderly people- [ Interruption. ] Well, I think that the country is also interested in the standards of care that old people are getting in our hospitals. This idea that everything is right and rosy in the health service after what happened under the former Government opposite has just been shown to be completely untrue. Do we need to change the system and make it more related to what GPs and patients want? Yes, we absolutely do.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Prime Minister join me in praising the work of the Conservative administration in my constituency, which has saved £1 million a year by cutting senior management and bureaucracy and protecting front-line services-measures unfortunately opposed by the local Labour group on the council?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that we have made available all this information. Now, local councils have to set out their expenditure on every item over £500, so people can see how much money is being spent on salaries, how much is being spent on bureaucracy, and how much could be put into voluntary sector and other organisations. We have given local people the tools to hold their local politicians to account, and that is a thoroughly progressive step.

Brian H Donohoe: Can I first put on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for meeting a small delegation from my constituency on the whole question of unemployment in the Ayrshire area? Does he really think, however, that being part of the big society that he talks about means throwing youngsters on to the streets of the UK as a result of the cuts in housing benefit?

David Cameron: What we are doing in terms of housing benefit is what was set out in the manifesto that the hon. Gentleman stood on, which is to say that we should not be subsidising housing benefit for people to live in houses that taxpayers themselves cannot afford. That is the principle behind the welfare Bill, which will be coming before this House shortly, and I look forward to it getting wide-ranging support.

Duncan Hames: The Prime Minister has drawn comparisons between care homes and hospitals when discussing changes to disability allowance, which are out for consultation until Friday. Yet for those who, for reasons of disability, spend not just their latter years but their whole lives in care homes, this comparison simply is not valid. Will he ask his Ministers to look again at this?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is exactly what we have been looking at. The whole intention of the change that was announced in the Budget and the spending review was to make sure that there was not an overlap in the way that we were judging people in care homes and people in hospitals. I think that when he sees what is proposed in the welfare Bill, he will see that it meets his concerns.

Michael Connarty: Sadly, since I first asked the Prime Minister about human trafficking in September, he has collapsed every Government initiative on the issue, including the excellent POPPY project, which rescues women from prostitution. Tomorrow, when I meet my colleagues from the Portuguese Parliament who are signing up to the human trafficking directive, where will I tell them that our Prime Minister has lost his moral compass on the issue of human trafficking?

David Cameron: What the hon. Gentleman says is completely wrong. The Government are supporting organisations that are helping on the issue of human trafficking. We are committed to ensuring that we have the best and toughest laws on human trafficking. I know that he works on this issue, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), as have Members in previous Parliaments. It is not necessary to opt in to the human trafficking directive to give ourselves the strongest laws here in the UK. It is that that we should be doing, and that that I am committed to making sure we are doing.

Jason McCartney: Labour-led Kirklees council is still obsessed with top-down housing targets, leaving my constituents worried that the beautiful green fields of the Colne and Holme valleys will be bulldozed-quite a few trees could be chopped down too. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Localism Bill will give my constituents a real say in what developments go on in their area?

David Cameron: I can give that assurance, but I also make the point that under the top-down targets of the Labour party, house building in this country fell to its lowest level since 1923. The top-down, big-state solutions did not work. Through the new homes bonus and by rewarding local authorities that build houses, we are benefitting local communities that opt to have more homes and businesses, because that is part of the economic development that we badly need.

Tony Lloyd: The overwhelming majority of my constituents believe that the cuts to local government spending are not only too fast and too deep, but cruel and politically motivated. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why my constituents are wrong?

David Cameron: I tell the hon. Gentleman directly that I think the cuts being made by Manchester city council are politically driven and too deep. Manchester city council is having its grant cut by 15%-less than my council, for instance, which is being cut by 23%-and yet it is cutting services by 25%. I notice that it still has £100 million in bank balances, and that its chief executive is paid more than £200,000 a year. I think that people in Manchester will look at their council and say, "Cut out the waste, cut out the bureaucracy, start to cut the chief executive's salary, and only then should you look at services."

Philip Davies: After votes for prisoners, we now have the potential for human rights legislation to give sex offenders the opportunity to come off the sex offenders register. Is the Prime Minister aware that my constituents are sick to the back teeth of the human rights of criminals and prisoners being put before the rights of law-abiding citizens in this country? Is it not time that we scrapped the Human Rights Act and, if necessary, withdrew from the European convention on human rights?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend speaks for many people in saying how completely offensive it is, once again, to have a ruling by a court that flies in the face of common sense. Requiring serious sexual offenders to sign the register for life, as they now do, has broad support across this House and across the country. I am appalled by the Supreme Court ruling. We will take the minimum possible approach to this ruling and use the opportunity to close some loopholes in the sex offenders register. For instance, we will make it compulsory for sex offenders to report to the authorities before any travel and will not allow them to change their name by deed poll to avoid having their name on the register. I can also tell my hon. Friend that a commission will be established imminently to look at a British Bill of Rights, because it is about time we ensured that decisions are made in this Parliament rather than in the courts.

Nia Griffith: Given the difference in tone between "Drink Responsibly" and "Smoking Kills", what action will the Prime Minister take in response to the heartfelt pleas of my constituent Rachel Jones, who wants to see much harder-hitting labels on alcoholic drinks following the tragic death of her boyfriend, Stuart Cable, the former Stereophonics drummer?

David Cameron: I think we should be looking at what action we can take through the tax system to deal with problem drinks, which we are looking at, and at tougher minimum pricing for alcohol. That is where we should be putting our attention, rather than necessarily looking at labelling. Many of the problems that we have, such as people-particularly young people-pre-loading before they go for a night out, are related to deeply discounted drinks in supermarkets and elsewhere. That is what we should deal with first.

Jonathan Evans: Thousands of younger women drivers in the UK face the prospect of massive hikes in their motor insurance premiums as the result of a perverse reinterpretation of the EU gender equality directive, carried forward by those on the Opposition Benches. What will my right hon. Friend say to encourage better risk assessment to avoid such unintended consequences?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that because of how this issue has been handled, many people who face lower insurance premiums because of their risk profiles will have to pay more. I am afraid that it falls to me to speak an eternal truth to the House of Commons: on the whole, women have better safety driving records than men, but as a result of that judgment, they will not benefit from lower insurance payments. What that says to me is that we have to work much better at risk-assessing and then stopping so much of the damaging regulation coming out of Brussels.

Hazel Blears: The importance of internships in helping young people to get on in life has been much in the news lately. Will the Prime Minister therefore take this opportunity to express his support for the Speaker's new parliamentary placements scheme? It is a cross-party initiative backed by the hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) that will give people from working-class backgrounds the chance to come to Parliament, get vital experience of political life and be paid a living wage; and-who knows?-they may well be the politicians of the future.

David Cameron: I fully support what the right hon. Lady says. This is a very important scheme. As shadow Cabinet members in opposition we worked with the Social Mobility Foundation to give internships, and we will be doing it again as Cabinet members. It is a very important initiative and I very much welcome what the Speaker is doing.

Charlie Elphicke: What investigation has the Prime Minister made into the allegation that the IMF was bullied into toning down its assessment of the dangers facing the UK economy?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which is that the IMF was reporting on the state of the British economy, and was arguing that we did have a structural deficit and that it was a problem. However, Labour attempted to gag the IMF when it was in power, because the previous Government did not want to own up to the mess that they had got this country into. Even now, the Opposition are still denying the fact that they left us with a dangerous fiscal deficit that is the cause of many of the problems that we face today.

Jim Shannon: The Prime Minister will be aware of people's concerns about the coastguard. This week a cross-party deputation from Northern Ireland consisting of four MPs from this House met coastguard officials. Is the Prime Minister aware that the figures from Bangor coastguard station show 654 responses over this past year? Does he think that one station could satisfactorily handle almost 10 times the current number of calls, should Bangor coastguard station be closed or the service be reduced from 19 coastguard stations UK-wide to an inadequate two stations?

David Cameron: I am very aware of this issue, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will be speaking to the Secretary of State for Transport about it. The point is this: the coastguard agency has to prove in the consultation that it wants to co-ordinate the number of offices that receive calls, in order to put more money and resources into the front-line service-the number of boats, rescue facilities and helpers. That is the aim of the policy, but I fully accept that that has to be proved to people in order to go ahead with the proposals being made.

Gavin Williamson: At my surgery on Saturday, a constituent explained to me that, with an ill husband and a young family, she had been told that she would be better off giving up her part-time job and relying on benefits. Will the Prime Minister assure this House that we will give people the incentive and the support to go into work and end the culture of welfare dependency left by the Opposition?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend speaks about this issue in an absolutely correct way. The fact is that for too long we have had a welfare system that pays people-it gives them an incentive-not to go out and work. The universal credit, which will be introduced through the welfare Bill, will mean that in every case, no matter how few hours someone works, they will always be better off in work and working more. That is absolutely right and long overdue, and I hope that it will have support from right across the House of Commons.

Nigel Dodds: In a week in which we have had revelations about the appalling level of health care for our pensioners, what is the Prime Minister saying to the elderly population of this country by proposing to change the inflation link for the uprating of benefits and pensions from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, which will cost present and future pensioners millions of pounds in lost income? How is that fair? How does it protect the vulnerable?

David Cameron: The first point that I would make is that the state pension, under the triple lock, will be linked with whichever is highest, but we are also taking the step, which the last Government did not for 10 years, of re-linking the state pension with earnings. That is an absolutely vital step in giving people the dignity and security that they deserve in old age.

Julian Huppert: The Government are planning to ask the House to extend the control orders regime until it is replaced by terrorism prevention and investigation measures. I am sure that the Prime Minister would not want the House to act without having all the necessary information, so will he assure all hon. Members that we will have sight of the TPIMs legislation before being asked to vote on the extension?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, this is a very big change that we are making from control orders to the new system, and I am sure that the House will be consulted properly, and that proper prior sight of what is being proposed will be made. But he can get involved right now if he wants to, as the policy is being developed.

Sharon Hodgson: Mr Speaker, in 2008, your review into communication needs described speech therapy services as a "postcode lottery", and, sadly, in 2010, a national survey of primary special educational needs co-ordinators showed that 57% had never heard of the Bercow review, and that services remain as inequitable now as they were then. In the national year of communication, and with "The King's Speech" having done so much to raise awareness of this issue, will the Prime Minister clarify whether the Government are planning to implement the recommendations of your review, and how they are planning to do that when local authorities are facing such huge cuts?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady will shortly see the Green Paper on special educational needs, in which we are giving priority to this area because, as I know from my own experience, getting hold of a speech and language therapist is often extremely difficult. Of course, as in every other area, there will be constraints in terms of resources, but I think we can do better by having a less confrontational system and making sure that more resources actually get to the parents who need them and who want to do the right thing for their children.

Sex Offenders Register

Theresa May: The sex offenders register has existed since 1997. Since that time, it has helped the police to protect the public from those most horrific of crimes. Requiring serious sexual offenders to sign the register for life, as they do now, has broad support across the House, but the Supreme Court ruled last April that not granting sex offenders the opportunity to seek a review was a breach of their human rights-in particular, the right to a private or family life. Those are rights, of course, that those offenders have taken away from their victims in the cruellest and most degrading manner possible.
	The Government are disappointed and appalled by that ruling. It places the rights of sex offenders above the right of the public to be protected from the risk of their reoffending, but there is no possibility of further appeal. The Government are determined to do everything we can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders, so we will make the minimum possible changes to the law in order to comply with the ruling. I want to make it clear that the Court's ruling does not mean that paedophiles and rapists will automatically come off the sex offenders register. The Court found only that they must be given the right to seek a review.
	The Scottish Government have already implemented a scheme to give offenders an automatic right of appeal for removal from the register after 15 years. We will implement a much tougher scheme. Offenders will be able to apply for consideration of removal only after waiting 15 years following release from custody. In England and Wales, there will be no automatic appeals. We will deliberately set the bar for those reviews as high as possible. Public protection must come first. A robust review, led by the police and involving all the relevant agencies, will be carried out so that a full picture of the risks to the public can be considered.
	The final decision on whether an offender should remain on the register will be down to the police, and not, as in Scotland, the courts. The police are best placed to assess the risk of an offender committing another crime, and they will rightly put the public first. There will be no right of appeal against the police's decision to keep an offender on the register. That decision will be final. Sex offenders who continue to pose a risk will remain on the register, and will do so for life if necessary.
	When we are free to take further action to protect the public, we will do so. We will shortly launch a targeted consultation aimed at closing four existing loopholes in the sex offenders register. We will make it compulsory for sex offenders to report to the authorities before travelling abroad for even one day. That will prevent them from being free to travel for up to three days, as they are under the existing scheme. We will force sex offenders to notify the authorities whenever they are living in a household containing a child under the age of 18. We will require sex offenders to notify the authorities weekly of where they can be found when they have no fixed abode. We will tighten the rules so that sex offenders can no longer avoid being on the register when they change their names by deed poll.
	Finally, I can tell the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary will shortly announce the establishment of a commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of rights. It is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts; that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals; and, above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these.
	I commend my statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: This is an important matter involving some of the most serious crimes in society. I thank the Home Secretary for supplying me with the statement within the last half hour, but I must say that it is worrying that the Home Office has again allowed information to be given to the media before it has been given to the House.
	The depravity and seriousness of sex offences, and the harm and damage that they do to victims, mean that the systems that we operate to protect the public must be paramount. We have an obligation to ensure that vulnerable children and other victims can be protected from such terrible crimes. As the Home Secretary knows, that is why the sex offenders register was established in the first place. The law rightly requires people who have been convicted of such serious crimes to meet further registration requirements once their sentences have been served, in the interests of public protection and to prevent further terrible crimes from taking place.
	The priority now must still be public safety, and the protection of our young and vulnerable people. Those victims of crime have suffered and continue to suffer greatly because of the actions of sex offenders. We know, too, that many such offenders can still pose a serious threat to the public. The court judgment to which the Home Secretary has responded today itself quotes the research finding that just over a quarter of those imprisoned for such offences did reoffend. Those offences included some that were very serious, a large number of which were committed many years later.
	Does the Home Secretary agree that, while of course proper and fair processes must always be followed for individuals through the courts, the protection of families and communities up and down the country is paramount? She has said that the new system will be tough. Let me say to her that it is vital to the safety and protection of children in particular, but also to that of other victims, that the new system is extremely tough if it is to have the support of the House.
	The Home Secretary said that Parliament should decide the level of protection that is needed, and that Parliament should set the laws. However, she has given Parliament very little information today about the way in which the new system will operate. Will the new framework be enshrined in legislation? Will Parliament have an opportunity to debate the details? The Home Secretary will know that many Members of Parliament and members of the public will be very concerned about the possibility that any new framework might enable serious offenders to manipulate the system. It is essential that that is not allowed to happen, but it is also important for Parliament to have an opportunity to debate it to ensure that it does not happen.
	Will the Home Secretary ensure that the focus is on public protection, rather than on the convenience or rights of those who have been convicted of serious crimes? Will she tell us how many offenders will be affected? Will she tell us what the level of the police assessment will be, and what standards the police will seek to meet as part of their review?
	Will the police be given additional resources to do this? She will know that there is concern in the House about the police's resources and about whether they are stretched already as a result of the cuts the Government are making. Will she say what additional resources the police will have, what additional resources they will require and the number of people on whom they will be expected to carry out reviews as a result of the changes she is proposing? She will know that some police forces have already expressed concern that as a result of the 20% cuts they are facing, their need to respond and their need to try to keep as many people in neighbourhood policing as possible, many specialist units within police forces are coming under the greatest pressure as a result of the decisions she has made. What reassurance can she give the House and the public that there will be no increased risk to the public as a result of these changes and of pressure on the police?
	I welcome the Home Secretary's proposal to consider other tighter measures on sex offenders, but does that have any implications for the changes that she appears to be making in the opposite direction to the vetting and barring provisions? She has also raised, as part of her statement, discussion of a Bill of rights. We would welcome a debate about that, although wider issues associated with written constitutions can also be debated. However, I am concerned at the form that this announcement has taken, because it is, in itself, a major announcement and the House should have an opportunity to have that debate and raise questions.
	In conclusion, the Home Secretary will know that the public would be horrified if the rights, or even the convenience, of people who have been convicted of very serious crimes were to be put above the right to safety and family life of the public and of vulnerable people and vulnerable victims. She will know that Labour Members will not support any changes that will do that, and I hope that she intends not to do that. I look forward to her answers to the questions.

Theresa May: I can say categorically to the right hon. Lady that it is indeed the Government's intention to put the protection of the public first. Had she listened to my statement or read it beforehand, she would have noted that it says that in a number of places. We are appalled by the Court's decision. I would far rather not have to stand here saying that we have to make a change to the sex offenders register, but we do have to make a change. We will do so in the most minimal way possible to ensure that we do put public protection first, and that we give the police and others the ability to ensure that the public are protected from such serious and appalling crimes as have been committed by individuals on this register.
	The right hon. Lady asked quite a number of questions. She asked whether we are making the protection of families paramount, and I have said that we are. She said that the system should be extremely tough and, yes, our intention is that it will be as tough as possible. That is why we have looked not only at what we can do in the minimal way to put this judgment into effect, but at ways to toughen up the sex offenders register regime-for example, by the requirement that we want to introduce for individuals on the register to have to notify when they are going abroad for at least a day. That is a toughening of the current system.
	The right hon. Lady asked about Parliament's opportunity to debate this measure. It will be introduced through an order-a statutory instrument-so there will be an opportunity to debate it. She asked about the numbers who will be affected. That will be set out in the regulatory impact assessment that will accompany the statutory instrument. She asked about the process of consideration that the police will go through. They will be talking to all other agencies that have an interest in this area, so they will talk to the probation service, local authorities, social services, youth offending teams and a variety of other agencies to ensure that they have the best possible picture of the individual concerned in order to make the best possible judgment. I am sure that she will agree that the police are very clear about the importance of public protection. That is why I want the police to make these decisions; I believe that they will put public protection first. They will examine a series of issues, such as the seriousness of the offences originally committed and the age of the victims. They will address a range of issues when they are considering whether a review should be upheld and whether the individual should stay on the register.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the ability of the police to deal with this. ACPO and the National Offender Management Service have been actively involved in putting together and shaping the policy. One of their considerations has, of course, been its deliverability. We are confident that the policy can be delivered, as is ACPO. Like us, ACPO wants to ensure that we have the toughest possible policy to protect the public. It is different from the vetting and barring scheme, where the problem was that lots of innocent people found themselves on it and were subject to its requirements. This proposal is about the people who have been found guilty of heinous crimes and is about making sure that we reduce the risk of reoffending to members of the public. As I have announced in relation to the Bill of rights, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary will make further announcements about that imminently.

Peter Lilley: May I astonish my right hon. Friend by saying that I think there is some merit in the Court's decision, particularly in the way she has interpreted it? Does not this case illustrate the fact that rights are not absolute and that the rights of the victim have to be balanced against the rights of children and the public in general? The process of reconciliation is ultimately as much political as legal and Parliament should therefore always have the last word. Is it not a relief that this decision was taken by the Supreme Court and not by the Court in Strasbourg? Does she agree that we should resile from that as soon as possible?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend tempts me down a route that it would not be appropriate to go down. On his first point, rights are not absolute. The article 8 right against which the judgment was made clearly is not an absolute right. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members-indeed, all of them, I hope-are as concerned as I am when a court makes a judgment that puts the rights of a perpetrator above the rights of the public and individual victims. In a similar area, I find it incredible that we are not able to deport people who are linked to al-Qaeda and who have terrorist intent in this country because the court says that their rights mean that we cannot deport them, but the court is not looking at the rights of members of the British public. That is what we should be doing.

Jack Straw: I support the Home Secretary's views on the merits of the existing sex offenders register and her concern about the Court's decision, but will she confirm that under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 there is absolutely no obligation on her or the House to change the law one bit? All the Court did was to issue a declaration of incompatibility and section 4 makes it absolutely clear that any decision following that is a matter for the sovereign Parliament. It would be entirely lawful for the House and her to say that the existing regime will continue without any amendment.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point about the application of the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights and about Parliament having the final decision about what should happen. In this case, Parliament will have the final decision on what happens.

Tom Brake: Does the Home Secretary agree that the right to respect for private life must not trump the safety of our children? Given the impossibility of tackling some offending behaviour of a sexual nature, even if reviews of notification requirements are granted, presumably she expects that those reviews will insist that the notification requirements are maintained. Is it also her understanding that the police decision could be subject to judicial review?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the balance of rights. It is the case, I believe, that the police decision could be subject to judicial review. It is absolutely right that the police will look at all aspects of cases and take every consideration into account when deciding whether a review should be upheld such that the individual no longer remains on the register. I cannot second-guess any decisions that the police will take, but they will be making every effort to ensure that they are, absolutely, looking properly at these cases to ensure that the decisions they take enable them to maintain public protection.

Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary has struck exactly the right tone today, and it is heartening to hear both Front Benchers being very clear about where they stand on this issue. Protection of the public is the most important consideration, but, in view of what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has just said, will the Government ensure that the appeal process is examined very carefully indeed so that it is as robust as possible and there is not a legal challenge? That will mean proper consultation with Parliament and a proper scheme, so that people are well aware that it is very tough indeed.

Theresa May: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, and it is absolutely our intention that we should make the scheme as tough as possible and make it clear that it is about an ability to seek a review of a decision. We will frame it in the toughest possible terms and ensure that the process is absolutely right, so that we reduce the opportunity for it to be subject to any sort of judicial review once the decision is taken.

Rob Wilson: I support and welcome the Home Secretary's statement, but may I ask for a little more clarity? She said that the final decision on whether an offender should remain on the register would be one for the police. Will that be a matter for the chief constable, as at present, or will it be one for the police commissioner in future?

Theresa May: It will be for a senior police officer, who will be a chief constable or another senior police officer. It will not be a matter for the police and crime commissioner.

David Hanson: In the unfortunate event of somebody being released from the sex offenders register because of this judgment, does the Secretary of State agree that it is imperative that the victim of the crime be informed of that variation?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I am certainly willing to take it away and consider it.

Robert Buckland: I welcome the Home Secretary's approach to this as being purely a police matter. There has been a common misapprehension that requirements to sign on the sex register are somehow court orders. They are not. They are not part of the sentence or the judicial process, and I therefore welcome the commitment to keep the matter firmly within the realms of police discretion.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend, who brings his experience in the law to that point. It is absolutely right that the police will deal with the matter and make the decision.

Paul Goggins: I, too, welcome the rigorous approach that the Home Secretary is taking, and I say that as the Minister who took the Sexual Offences Act 2003 through Committee. Does she agree that given the highly secretive and manipulative behaviour of many sex offenders, it is highly unlikely that the offence of which they were convicted is the only crime that they have committed? Will she ensure in any review process that there is a clear onus on the offender to demonstrate beyond doubt that they are no longer a risk to the public?

Theresa May: I have a number of points to make to the right hon. Gentleman. Throughout the House, we all agree that Parliament needs to get the answer right for the sake of public protection. The police will be able to take other offences into account when they consider whether an individual should remain on the sex offenders register, and they will look as widely as possible at the behaviour of the individual in question, consulting as wide a number of agencies as possible to ensure that they make the best possible decision for the public.

David Nuttall: I welcome the Home Secretary's desire to tighten the loopholes in the sex offenders register, and particularly her proposal to prevent sex offenders from avoiding registering by changing their name by deed poll. I am sure she will be aware that deed poll is only one way in which a person can change their name. It is the most formal way, but not the most usual. Changing name by statutory declaration is quicker and easier. Perhaps she will consider that as another loophole that should be closed.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is important that we examine the process of changing a name by deed poll and tighten the rules so that sex offenders cannot use them as a means of avoiding the need to register. He makes a valid point about statutory declaration, and we will certainly take it into consideration.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Home Secretary has said that the police decision on these matters will be final. I hope she agrees that if one offender gets off the sex offenders register, it is one too many. Will the victim be able to appeal against that decision by the police and try to overturn it?

Theresa May: No, there will be no appeal mechanism.

Aidan Burley: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement, the key phrase in which was that public protection must come first. We may compare that with judges who have instead ruled that paedophiles' and rapists' rights to privacy must come first. What would she say to those out-of-touch judges in the Supreme Court who are now openly, proudly and provocatively saying that a paedophile's right to privacy is more important than children's protection from those who have committed evil sexual acts?

Theresa May: It is important that we balance the public's right to protection against the rights of the individual, but as I said at the end of my statement, it is time that we asserted that it is Parliament that makes our laws.

Stephen McCabe: I congratulate the Home Secretary on adopting a much tougher approach than the Scottish authorities. Does she have any regrets that she did not overrule her officials and similarly reject the much weaker Scottish model for the retention of DNA profiles?

Theresa May: We have not in fact absolutely adopted the Scottish model in relation to DNA, and we have gone further than it. We have adopted protections for those who are innocent, and that is different from the situation that we are considering today, which is about people who have been found guilty and are at risk of reoffending. We must deal with public protection in that regard. The rules that we propose for the retention of DNA are about enabling the police to have the tools that they need, but at the same time not putting the DNA of a lot of innocent people on the database.

Bob Blackman: I, like many others, am appalled by the Court's decision, but I welcome the Home Secretary's statement, particularly the part about tightening the rules. One concern will be about potential inconsistency of approach between different police forces. Highly manipulative people moving around the country may find themselves on the sex offenders register in one part of the country, but a decision may be made to take them off it in another part. How will she ensure that consistency is applied to the whole country?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend obviously makes an important point, but of course ACPO has been actively involved in putting the proposals together, as I said earlier, and it will be for ACPO to ensure that its guidance to forces across the country is appropriately strong and followed by all forces.

Jenny Chapman: My constituent, 17-year-old Ashleigh Hall, was murdered having been groomed by a registered sex offender on Facebook. When the Home Secretary is examining the loopholes, will she ensure that all sex offenders are required to register their online identities as well, and that any failure to do so is seen just as seriously as if they had failed to register the fact that they were living with young children?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady raises a valid issue about the use of new technology and the internet by sex offenders. If she would like to write to me about it, I will be happy to look into it.

Robert Halfon: My constituents will welcome the taking-on of the Human Rights Act and its replacement with a Bill of Rights, particularly as it was a manifesto commitment. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents and the public that sex offenders who have a right of appeal will not be removed from the register if they continue to pose a threat to the public?

Theresa May: The whole point of the review process is that it will be down to the police to assess whether there is a risk of reoffending. If there is considered to be a risk, the individuals in question will stay on the register.

Naomi Long: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She highlighted in it the difference in the approaches in Scotland and here at Westminster. Will she reassure us that differences between different devolved Administrations will not lead to people being able to be removed from the sex offenders register because of different thresholds being applied in different locations?

Theresa May: I reassure the hon. Lady that we will talk to the devolved Administrations. What I have announced will cover England and Wales, but we will talk to Scotland and Northern Ireland about the approach that we are adopting to ensure as far as we can that sex offenders do not move from one jurisdiction to another to get around the rules.

Peter Bone: I thank the Home Secretary not only for the content of her statement, but for the fact that she has come to the House so quickly and that the statement was not leaked in advance.
	Yesterday, when the Justice Secretary was questioned on the establishment of a commission on the Bill of Rights, he said that it would be done very quickly. Unfortunately, he was unable to answer my question on when that commission will report. Until we have a British Bill of Rights, I am afraid that the Home Secretary will be coming to the Dispatch Box to make more such statements.

Theresa May: I am tempted to point out to my hon. Friend that the statement may not have been leaked, but the Prime Minister covered one or two aspects of it in Prime Minister's questions.
	On the Bill of Rights, the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary will imminently set out the arrangements for that commission and say how it will be formed, which I expect will include an end date.

Mark Tami: My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) asked about funding for specialist units, many of which were formed because of a failure in normal policing to find people on the register, and because police forces did not talk to each other. What guarantees can the Home Secretary give on funding for such specialist units?

Theresa May: Of course, how a police budget is distributed to the different departments of each police force is a matter for the chief constable. The hon. Gentleman will know what I am about to say because the Government have made this clear a number of times. Police forces can take a significant sum of money out of their budgets not by cutting specialist units and visible policing, but by dealing with procurement and IT, and through collaboration with other forces. It is not just me saying that; Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary says it too.

Guy Opperman: I welcome the Home Secretary's commitment to close the loophole that allows sex offenders to go abroad for up to three days without notifying the police. The previous Government had since 1997 to close that loophole, but did not take such action.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I am just pleased that we could take that action today to ensure that we closed that loophole and the others that I mentioned in my statement.

Barry Gardiner: The Home Secretary has been absolutely right in setting her face against the judgment, but will she confirm that it remains lawful to insist that sex offenders stay on the register for life? Although the measures she has announced are strong and seek to protect the public, she does not have to take them-it would be lawful for her to keep to the higher standard of keeping them on the register for life.

Theresa May: We have already had one challenge on this ruled on by the Supreme Court, and there is the prospect of others. We have no further right of appeal through the Supreme Court mechanism, so we are introducing what we believe to be a tough set of measures that will address the issue. Of course, it will continue to be possible for sex offenders to stay on the register for life.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. I have appeared in Parole Board hearings. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the police officers who will make decisions will have all the information on an offender that is available in a Parole Board hearing, from judges' sentencing remarks on dangerousness, to pre-sentence reports and the offender's full record in custody, so that they can make a thorough decision, so that the public are fully protected?

Theresa May: That is absolutely our intention. The police should have the fullest information possible on which to base their decision on whether a sex offender should stay on the register. Indeed, I expect that when we lay the statutory instrument before the House, we will be able to go into more detail on the sort of information that will be available to the police.

William McCrea: I assure the Home Secretary that my hon. and right hon. Friends wholeheartedly agree with her statement. It is time to assert that Parliament makes the laws, not the courts. It is our duty as a House to protect the general public from those who perpetrate such horrific crimes. If it is the will of the House to strengthen our laws, instead of weakening them in the light of the Court's decision, we should assert the authority of the House.
	When will consultation be held with the Northern Ireland Executive?

Theresa May: We will have discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Government shortly-we have held some discussions with the latter because they have taken some steps down this road already. These issues will come to Parliament for it to decide. The commission on the British Bill of Rights, which was announced today, is a step that the Government are taking to ensure that we bolster the ability of Parliament to set our laws. The previous Government introduced the Human Rights Act. I am afraid that they saw the problems that the Act created and did nothing-this Government are doing something about it.

Mark Pritchard: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement, but how confident is she that the increasingly robust Supreme Court, and the European Courts with their extraterritorial reach, will not overrule her very firm and welcome announcement today? Is it not time to introduce a Bill of Rights very early indeed, rather than having a commission which may report sometime in the future-

Mr Speaker: I call the Home Secretary.

Theresa May: I see what my hon. Friend is getting at, but it is right to have a commission to look into the British Bill of Rights. The purpose of my statement was to set out a way forward that meets the requirement set by the Supreme Court, which should therefore not be subject to a further ruling by that Court.

Alan Campbell: Will the victims be not only told of the outcome of the decision, but consulted before the decision is made?

Theresa May: As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), we will consider what information is available to the victim and their role.

Philip Hollobone: Residents in my constituency are absolutely fed up to the back teeth with human rights legislation and the way in which it is being used to promote the rights of bad people over the rights of good people. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that when the commission on the Bill of Rights is established, an end date will be published. May I urge her to urge the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary to choose an early end date, which we need so that legislation can be introduced in the House in this Parliament, so that the issue can be resolved once and for all?

Theresa May: Most Members of the House are fed up with the way in which decisions by the House are increasingly being overturned by the courts. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary know well of his interest in this matter. As I said, we will ensure that we can take action to assert the rights of Parliament.

BILL PRESENTED

Welfare Reform Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Secretary Duncan Smith, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs Secretary May, Mr Secretary Clarke, Mr Secretary Lansley, Mr Secretary Pickles, Chris Grayling and Maria Miller, presented a Bill to make provision for universal credit and personal independence payment; to make other provision about social security and tax credits; to make provision about the functions of the registration service, child support maintenance and the use of jobcentres; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First Time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 149) with explanatory notes (Bill 149-EN).

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision requiring certain prisoners due to be considered for early release to complete a relevant offender management programme, where available; to require courts to take regard of mental health problems in sentencing; to make provision regarding minimum and maximum sentences; and for connected purposes.
	There are currently too many anomalies in sentencing. People are given sentences that are not always appropriate to the crime they have committed, and sentences do not subsequently have regard to the progress that people make during their time in prison. The Bill would introduce new clauses to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to address some of those anomalies, to ensure that courts have greater freedom to impose the sentence that they deem necessary, and to ensure that there is greater incentive for prisoners to partake of rehabilitation programmes so as to be considered for early release.
	I therefore propose to add three new measures to the aforementioned Act. First, I would add new clauses to warrant that early release from both indeterminate public protection sentences and determinate sentences is incentive-based, not automatic. Secondly, I would add new clauses on maximum and minimum sentences. Thirdly, I would ensure that courts are given the right to have regard to mental health problems when sentencing convicted persons.
	I shall speak first on the new conditions to be imposed on granting early release. Indeterminate public protection sentences have been a controversial measure since their inception. Under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, where a person aged 18 or over is imprisoned for public protection but the court does not consider life imprisonment necessary, the convicted person may be imprisoned for a period of at least two years but less than life. The court sets a minimum period or tariff to be served before a prisoner can apply for parole. The measure was intended to be used sparingly but, presumably due to the inflexible requirements laid down by the Government, IPP sentences are being used more frequently than expected.
	I believe that not enough thought is put into determining a prisoner's tariff and that because little focus is placed on putting these prisoners into rehabilitation programmes, there are thousands of prisoners on IPP sentences in our prisons who in many cases will be released without regard being given to the remorse shown or even to a prisoner's rehabilitation. Because of amendments made to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 by schedule 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a person serving a sentence of imprisonment or detention for a term can be considered for early release after serving one half of that sentence. I believe that that needs to be put right.
	My Bill will add a new clause to section 255 of the 2003 Act to the effect that a person serving an IPP sentence shall have that sentence reviewed by the Parole Board at least every two years. Furthermore, all persons serving IPP sentences must have access made available to relevant offender management programmes. When determining whether to recommend a person for release on licence, the Parole Board should have regard to the availability and completion of these programmes. It is cost-effective to do this.
	On a daily basis, 5,659 people are serving an IPP sentence, of which 2,229 are beyond their tariff. On average, these prisoners are serving 244 days beyond their tariff. It costs roughly £30,000 to keep someone incarcerated for 244 days. If we multiply this sum by 2,229, we get a figure of £68 million. By comparison, the cost of putting a prisoner through a rehabilitation programme would be £5,000 at most, which, multiplied by 2,229, comes to £11 million as opposed to the currently spent £68 million. Introducing this measure would thus be cost-effective and, I believe, beneficial to the protection of the public.
	Equally, for prisoners serving determinate sentences, the Parole Board must be satisfied that they are of low risk to the public before they are granted early release. Under section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, when a fixed-term prisoner has served the requisite custodial period the Secretary of State shall release him on licence. Since 2005, those serving four years or more have come out after serving 50% of their sentence-regardless of the progress they have made while in prison.
	My Bill would add a further subsection to this section, which would ensure that before releasing a person sentenced to four or more years in prison, the Parole Board must be satisfied that the individual is at low risk of harm to the public and low risk of reoffending. These amending provisions would ensure that incentives for rehabilitation are rewarded, but it is just as important that the courts be given greater freedom to impose the sentences they deem fit and have regard to the individual circumstances of each case.
	To satisfy this requirement, I would add an additional new clause to the Act on maximum and minimum sentences. This would mean that when sentencing a person to a determinate prison sentence, the court shall state the maximum time that should be served and also the minimum term. The stated minimum term must be less than half the maximum sentence but no less than one third of that sentence. In passing sentence, the court should, of course, have regard to the seriousness of the offence and it may request a pre-sentence report from a suitably qualified employee of the relevant probation trust. The notion of introducing maximum and minimum sentences was included in the last Conservative manifesto.
	I referred earlier to the importance of courts being able when passing a sentence to pay greater regard to the individual circumstances surrounding a case. The final new clause of my Bill, added to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, would mean that the courts could pay greater regard to psychological or psychiatric problems diagnosed in a person who has committed a violent or sexual offence. Under section 277, persons of 18 years or older who commit certain violent or sexual offences are given an extended sentence. However, in cases where a person has committed a serious crime and has subsequently been diagnosed-I stress subsequently diagnosed-with psychological or psychiatric problems, it is the feeling of many sentencers that an extended period of licence would be more appropriate both for the individual concerned and for the protection of the public. In many such cases, the disposal of a hospital order would be preferable, but that disposal is not currently available to sentencers.
	In the Eriksson case decided on 26 November 2009, that was precisely the finding of Mr Justice Saunders, who presided over the prosecution of a person who stabbed and killed a man while she was suffering from a debilitating mental illness. In his sentencing remarks, Mr Justice Saunders said that this
	"would clearly have been a case for a hospital order",
	but that "that disposal" was "not open" to him. He wished to pass a sentence that would provide an appropriate level of protection for the public, although not one designed to over-punish because the defendant's culpability was low, owing to her mental illness. He expressed great frustration that Parliament does not allow sentencers to order an extended period of licence, which he called "an unfortunate omission" in sentencers' powers.
	In that regard, I would add a new clause to section 277 to the effect that in determining whether to impose extended supervision a court shall have regard to any psychological or psychiatric assessment that is carried out following the commission of the offence as well as the likelihood of the person being involved in further similar serious offending. I believe that these new clauses would make vital revisions to sentencing, would grant greater autonomy to courts to review the circumstances of each case and would reward the progress made in prison. I accordingly commend them to the House.
	 Question put and agreed  to .
	 Ordered ,
	That Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mrs Linda Riordan, Claire Perry, Chris Evans, Hywel Williams, Jonathan Edwards and Mr Robert Buckland present the Bill.
	Mr Elfyn Llwyd accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 May, and to be printed. (Bill 150).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[11th Allotted Day]

Youth Unemployment

Liam Byrne: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the Government was wrong to cancel the Future Jobs Fund that would have created 200,000 jobs for young people; further believes that the Government's economic policies have slowed economic growth, raised youth unemployment and created the highest graduate unemployment for over a decade; further believes that urgent action is now required to stop a generation of young people being lost to worklessness; and calls on the Government to commission an independent assessment of the Future Jobs Fund to report to Parliament before the Government's Work Programme is implemented and to evaluate whether a guarantee and requirement of work incorporated into the Programme would bring down youth unemployment in the short and longer term and limit steep rises in welfare payments.
	I am glad that we have been able to force the Government to come to the House to debate the employment figures-or, rather, the unemployment figures-published this morning, because those figures will worry families, young and old, up and down the country. The headlines from this morning's numbers are bad enough-five quarters after the recession ended, unemployment is not going down but up; employment is not rising but falling-but the details are, I am afraid, even worse. Private sector employment is flat, while the number of public sector jobs is falling fast. It is becoming clear that the private sector is not creating jobs fast enough to absorb the redundancies that we know are coming down the line. There are now more women on the claimant count than at any time since 1996.
	The consequences for young people are perhaps most serious of all. One in five of our young people are now out of work; the number of unemployed has risen again; we now confront youth unemployment of almost a million-the highest figure on record. That figure is a wake-up call to this Government to get their act together. The question we want the House to debate today is quite simply, what should the Government do next?
	As if we needed it, this morning's figures are, if anything, fresh evidence of the need for a plan B on economic growth. We have rehearsed the debate in the House plenty of times over the past year, and I do not plan to do so again this afternoon. Suffice it to say that the Government are cutting spending too far and too fast. The recession having been over for a year, we would expect to see unemployment now falling fast, and yet it is not. Longer dole queues make the deficit not easier to pay down, but harder. The result is that working families end up paying the price.

Alok Sharma: The right hon. Gentleman was part of a Government who presided over a record rise in youth unemployment. As his Government's policies clearly did not work over 13 years, should he not, instead of carping from the sidelines, get behind the policies of the coalition Government, who are offering a fresh start to young people in this country?

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that is central to the debate, to which I shall return in substance in a moment, after giving way to the Minister.

Chris Grayling: For the record, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that last month's unemployment figure in this country was 2.498 million, and that this month's is 2.492 million?

Liam Byrne: The unemployment figures are getting worse, not better. This morning I heard the Minister quibble on the BBC that somehow unemployment in our country was stabilising, but the truth of today's figures is that private sector employment is dead flat, and the number of announced redundancies is growing by the day.  [ Interruption .] The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) carps from a sedentary position, but he would be better off reverting to the advice that he gave to the Conservative party before the election about the importance of taking further steps to help get young people back to work.

Chris Grayling: rose -

Liam Byrne: Before I give way to the Minister, let me finish this point, as I want to put a question to him.
	As I said, the rise in the dole bill makes the deficit not easier, but harder, to pay down. Although the Chancellor likes to pretend that the welfare cuts are somehow hitting shirkers not workers, will the Minister confirm that once we factor out the lower uprating the truth is that more than half the cuts in welfare spending are hitting working families?

Chris Grayling: As the one who is intervening, I think it is my job to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions. Will he confirm that one of the bits of good news this morning is that, for the second month in a row, job vacancies in the economy have increased significantly? Does he agree that that is an encouraging development?

Liam Byrne: Any increase in vacancies is good news, but 40,000 is not an enormous increase, and when private sector employment is dead flat and public sector redundancies are mounting, I am afraid that it poses serious questions about whether unemployment will continue to rise over the next couple of years.

Toby Perkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, worrying as the youth unemployment figures are, the complacency demonstrated by the Government in debate after debate is even more worrying. We heard today from the Prime Minister that youth unemployment has been a problem for a long time, but the Government's policies are making the situation worse. In my constituency, 1,100 people will potentially lose their jobs as a result of Auto Windscreens going into administration this week. All we hear from the Government is complacency, rather than an admission that their policies are making this major problem worse.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is right to highlight his constituency case, which has caused concern to families up and down the country. We saw figures today showing that earnings growth is now about half the rate of inflation. At a time when the jobs market is weaker, that will contribute to a tighter and tighter squeeze on working families over the coming months.

Joan Ruddock: May I tell my right hon. Friend that in my constituency, in the first 10 years of the Labour Government, youth unemployment was halved? Then we had a recession, and of course it began to rise. Will not the Government's cuts to the Connexions service, Opening Doors-one of our local facilities paid for by central Government-and education maintenance allowance for students who are in the middle of two-year courses result in more young people going on to the dole?

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend is right. Unless we hear something of substance from the Minister, I am afraid that her prediction is all too likely to pan out.
	When the squeeze on living standards is about to get tougher and tougher, one would expect action from the Government to help. In fact, more than half the welfare cut will hit working families, and by the end of the Parliament £3.4 billion will be taken off benefits for children-far more than the amount being taken off bankers. Putting aside the question of what kind of Government take more money off children than off bankers, if the Chancellor had done what he should have done, and implemented a proper bonus tax on the banks, he would have about £3.5 billion to invest in jobs and growth, including in jobs for young people. That must be the substance of our debate this afternoon.

Damian Hinds: On the simple numbers, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether youth unemployment was higher or lower at the end of Labour's term in office, despite the golden economic inheritance that it had?

Liam Byrne: Let me respond to that point in substance in a moment, and I will invite the hon. Gentleman to intervene again. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to ensure that we draw the right lessons from the past 13 years, as they have a critical bearing on the programme that we want the Government to put in place for the future.
	There are real differences between Government and Opposition about the macro-economic approach that we should take. We also share some values. Many of us share a passion to attack poverty in all its manifestations. We believe that the poverty of some impoverishes us all, not only because it affects the chances of many to lead the life that they would choose, but because it denies many the chances, opportunities, free range and scope to contribute to our country's progress. I happen to think that the Secretary of State shares that belief, about which I feel passionately, as my constituency has the second highest unemployment in the country and, as this morning's figures confirm, the highest youth unemployment. I do not have to go far to see wasted talent-I see it, and think about it, when I go to work every day. That inspires the passion with which many of us think carefully about the programme that the country needs to get youth unemployment back down.

Frank Field: If we are looking back on our period of stewardship and offering the Government lessons, does my right hon. Friend conclude, as I do, that one of our errors was not to introduce the future jobs fund earlier and put more resources into that than into the new deal?

Liam Byrne: We have learned many lessons from the future jobs fund, and there are many successes on which we can build. I will turn to that question in substance when I dwell on what we should learn from the past 10 years.
	The key point, which my right hon. Friend underlines, is that the right strategy for the Government during the recession and the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, was not to sit by and do nothing, or to watch as unemployment went through 3 million not once but twice, but to act, to save jobs, to keep people in their homes, and to keep businesses moving.

Pete Wishart: The right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that, under a Scottish National party Government, only in Scotland is unemployment falling and employment rising. He will also welcome the fact that we introduced 25,000 modern apprenticeships in our budget. Can he offer any explanation of Labour in Scotland's opposition to that?

Liam Byrne: The right approach in the Scottish economy-where GDP growth has unfortunately been weaker than growth in the UK generally over the last period-is to build on the success of the future jobs fund and put in place not 3,000 opportunities for the future, but 10,000. That is the approach Labour will propose in the run-up to the coming elections.
	Let us address Labour's record in office, a substantive point which has already been mentioned. When Labour came to office in 1997 some 656,000 young people were out of work. As our economy grew, we introduced a welfare to work programme that included creating Jobcentre Plus and the new deal, and which made sure that three quarters of our young people who went on to jobseeker's allowance were off JSA within six months. Setting aside those in full-time education-and we substantially increased the number of people in full-time education-that meant that the number of unemployed young people fell by some 20%. Indeed, between 1997 and the start of the global financial crisis the claimant count among young people fell by some 40%, and that was at a time when the number of young people in our country was rising; between 2000 and 2009 it rose by over 1 million. I think that Members will therefore forgive me for agreeing with the man who described the progress we made as "remarkable", and who said:
	"There is no question that the UK has made significant progress in the labour market over the last ten years."
	That man was the Government's welfare reform Minister, Lord Freud.

Rehman Chishti: If the last Labour Government's proposals and policies were such a success, why were one in five 16 to 24-year-olds out of work at the end of their period in office?

Liam Byrne: This may not have come up on the hon. Gentleman's radar, but there was the worst financial crisis since the 1920s at the end of Labour's term in office. During that crisis, Labour did the right thing by acting to get people back to work, to keep people in their homes and to help keep business on the move. That was a policy and approach which the hon. Gentleman's party should have supported.

Rehman Chishti: The right hon. Gentleman says that those economic difficulties arose towards the end of Labour's time in office, but the increase in unemployment started back in 2001, not near the end of its time in office.

Liam Byrne: The figures are very clear. Between 1997 and the start of the global financial crisis the number of young people on the claimant count fell by 40%.

Marcus Jones: The right hon. Gentleman and his party seem to blame the global financial crisis for every ill, but figures I received from the House of Commons Library this morning make it clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said, youth unemployment has been rising since 2001, yet the global financial crisis did not start until 2008. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

Liam Byrne: The facts speak for themselves. Between 1997 and the start of the financial crisis the number of young people on the claimant count fell by 40%. Because of the changes we put in place, the number of young people coming off JSA within six months was about three quarters of the number going on. That is why Lord Freud-the Government's own welfare reform Minister-was right to say that the progress we have made was "remarkable".

Damian Hinds: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises the value of international comparisons as well as time series comparisons, so does he acknowledge that in years before the onset of the global financial crisis, such as 2005, the number of young people not in employment, education or training in this country was higher than the OECD average, higher than the EU average, higher than in France, higher than in Germany and higher than in the United States?

Liam Byrne: The number of young people not in education, employment or training was lower, not higher, when Labour left office than when we came to office. Far too often, Conservative Members pray in aid that number-a number that is pretty static-but fail to acknowledge that the number of young people in our country increased by 1 million between 2000 and 2009.

Rehman Chishti: On the effects of the previous Government's policies, 279,000 people started on the flexible new deal, yet near the end only 3,000 were on it. That shows that the policy was a complete failure.

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman forgets to mention that the flexible new deal was introduced in the middle of the recession when unemployment was high, so that is possibly not the best way to evaluate the success of getting people back into work. I am sure we will learn later precisely which elements of the new deal the current Government are continuing with in their Work programme.

Chris Grayling: rose-

Liam Byrne: I will give way to the Minister in a moment, but first I want to talk about the recession. As this afternoon's interventions show, it is perfectly natural for Government Members to want to pray in aid figures from the beginning of 1997 and figures from the height of the recession. This point cuts to the heart of the debate we need to have this afternoon. When the recession hit, of course unemployment and the number of young people out of work rose, but we were not prepared to stand idly by and simply watch that happen, because we remember all too clearly the lessons of the 1980s when youth unemployment in this country spiralled up to 26%. Instead, therefore, we chose to act: we chose to expand student numbers and apprenticeships and the chance to work. That is why in the final two quarters of our time in office youth unemployment was falling, not rising, and by 67,000 or 9% by the time we left office. When the Minister intervenes, perhaps he will explain why, all of a sudden, that has now gone into reverse.

Chris Grayling: I am puzzled by a couple of points, and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can answer them for me. First, he keeps referring to the claimant count. Can he confirm that on the claimant count measure youth unemployment is 75,000 lower now than it was at the general election? He also talks about the period before the recession. Why did the OECD publish a report in 2008 saying it was profoundly concerned about youth unemployment in the UK because it was rising here but falling in every other developed country?

Liam Byrne: I would expect the OECD to express concern about youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is a serious issue, which is why we are having this debate. We do not think the Government's plan is adequate to deal with the problem. That is why youth unemployment is not falling at present, but is going up, which is what this morning's figures said.
	Youth unemployment in the final period of Labour's time in office, which was also a time of economic difficulty, fell by 67,000 or about 9%. Now all of that hard work has been undone. Since we left office, youth unemployment has not continued to fall. It has not even held steady; it has gone up and up and up. We cut youth unemployment even in the face of the economic storm, yet the current Government have failed to do so even with the winds of recovery at their back. They have watched it rise while the economy is growing. That takes some doing.

David Lammy: Does my right hon. Friend recall that two years ago during the passage of the Education and Skills Bill, we sought to extend the school leaving and training age from 16 to 18 but Members now on the Government Benches opposed that? How did that help youth unemployment at that time?

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend is right to raise that question, which underlines the dilemma so many young people now confront. With this morning's numbers now on the public record, it is clear that young people face a summer of anxiety. If they do not make the grades to get into college-and we know the number of college places is now more limited-they will face a labour market that is tougher than ever. That is a worry for them and their families, and for older residents in this country who, having worked hard all their life, are now concerned about who will pay for the future.

Nick de Bois: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that there is one significant distinction in respect of the figures he is discussing, in that there was massive over-reliance on putting people into the public sector through many of these programmes as a result of the legacy of economic failure that we have inherited? Therefore, there is naturally now some shrinkage in the public sector. That is the big difference. We have to create real jobs in the private sector for the long term.

Liam Byrne: I genuinely appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making and the argument he is rehearsing. Perhaps he could intervene again to let me know whether a job in the public sector is better than no job at all.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his invitation. A job is very important to the individual, no one doubts that; but we are talking about dealing with youth employment by creating work in a real sector that will last. That is the difference. We will only deal with the problem when the private sector has the opportunity to deliver long-term sustainable jobs-however well intentioned the programmes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman exposes the dilemma that now perplexes the Government's entire back-to-work programme. Figures issued this morning reveal that private sector employment is dead flat, yet public sector employment is falling fast. What has become clear from those figures is that because the Government have put the recovery in the slow lane, the private sector is not creating jobs fast enough to absorb the scale of redundancies that are being announced.

Albert Owen: Before I became a Member I ran a centre for the unemployed during the 1990s, so I know how painful things are for people who are unemployed long term. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) referred to public sector jobs. Let us make it clear: nurses and teachers have real jobs and provide real service to our communities.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) is right to compare and contrast the recessions of the 1990s and the present. In my constituency, unemployment was 100% higher during the recession of the 1990s, because the programmes-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but we must have shorter interventions. I am sure the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill has grasped the point.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). As many of my hon. Friends are doing this afternoon, he underlines the point that right across the country, over an extended period of Labour's term in office, youth unemployment was falling fast. Unemployment can never be as low as Members want, but the question that confronts us is how to draw the right lessons from those overwhelming successes in getting people back into work and how to apply the lessons to the present crisis when one in five young people is not in work.

Andrew Griffiths: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman by making a short intervention. Does he believe that the previous Government's spending of £3.5 billion on programmes to get young people back to work while youth unemployment rose was good value for money?

Liam Byrne: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate when we explained the simple point that during the latter months of our term in office, when the recession was difficult, youth unemployment was not rising but falling. All that progress-the fall between the peak of youth unemployment and when we left office-has been undone in the months since May. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is a fact. That is why earlier this week the former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, Mr Portes, told the Government bluntly that the challenge of youth unemployment is serious. He told  The Times that the Government were failing to address the scale of the problem. Without urgent action, he warned, hundreds of thousands of youngsters face a bleak employment prospect throughout the rest of their lives. That is why our motion calls on the Government to reflect again on the lessons of the future jobs fund, to commission an independent evaluation, draw the right lessons, learn from them, establish a more substantial programme for the future, and do it with urgency.
	The future jobs fund is at the heart of the motion. Because we felt so strongly about the scourge of youth unemployment, a concern that is shared by many Members, we were determined to make sure that as it began to rise again after falling so far, something was in place that would help. We set up the future jobs fund because we knew that one of the greatest lessons from the 1980s is that when young people are allowed to drift too far from the jobs market they lose the habit of work, which is a curse that can stay with them for the rest of their lives. That is why we made substantial investment, which at the time was supported by the Conservatives, to get 150,000-rising to 200,000-new jobs that would last six months, 100,000 of them for young people and 50,000 of them in areas of high unemployment.

Luciana Berger: My right hon. Friend said that he thought that the Conservatives supported the future jobs fund. In March, before the general election, the present Prime Minister came to Liverpool to visit Merseystride, a social enterprise that employed many people through the future jobs fund. He described the future jobs programme as a "good scheme" and said that his Government would keep any good scheme. Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister has backtracked on what he said when he saw that project?

Liam Byrne: I think the answer is simple: despite good intentions, the Prime Minister has let the Chancellor get the upper hand. I am afraid that is a negotiation the Department for Work and Pensions has lost, which is why its back-to-work programme is being slashed with such dangers for the future.
	I pay tribute to Steve Houghton, who was the leader of the local authority in Barnsley and did so much to pioneer the future jobs fund that has worked so well there. The Barnsley scheme is widely acknowledged to be one of the best in the country; it has 600 places for up to 12 months, a mixture of long-term and youth unemployed and a good track record on getting people into work. Barnsley, like other parts of the country, faces a future where that assistance is being pulled away.
	The challenge for our young people is that they now confront a triple whammy. Education maintenance allowance has been cut, tuition fees have been trebled and the future jobs fund is a thing of the past. Without the chance to work, without the chance to study, what are our young people supposed to do? Can Ministers tell us? There is not even a big society for young people to retreat to. Three quarters of youth charities are actually closing projects; 80% say that is because targeted support for young people is ending.
	In January, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), decided to act. I commend him for that. He introduced a work experience scheme. It was only for eight weeks, not six months, it did not pay the minimum wage and it did not cover people leaving higher or further education, but at least he was getting the idea. A fortnight ago, we learned that he was stepping up the pace-moving up a gear: at the Tory party's black and white ball we had the spectacle of an auctioneer selling prized internships at top City firms to the highest bidder. What started as a crusade against poverty has in just nine months become an auction of life chances for the wealthy. No wonder the young people of this country feel that they face a lottery, and the Minister is selling the tickets.
	Five people now compete for every job opening, and this morning we heard that things are not getting better. According to the Library, in more than 120 of our constituencies, there are more than 10 people competing for every job. Those people would yearn for a ticket to the black and white ball.  [ Interruption. ] We have just heard something very important: the Secretary of State is putting a ticket on the sale block.
	If there was something better to replace the future jobs fund, we might more easily comprehend its abolition. After all, this is what the Prime Minister promised when he told the BBC on Sunday 4 October 2009:
	"I want the new Conservative Party to be the party of jobs and opportunity and at the heart of it is a big, bold and radical scheme to get millions of people back to work."
	I am afraid that last night we learned the truth from the BBC, when it reported:
	"The government's new 'work programme'",
	described by the Prime Minister as the "biggest and boldest ever" plan to get people off benefits and back to work,
	"will actually help fewer people than the existing schemes that ministers are scrapping, the BBC has learned."
	The Department for Work and Pensions has revealed that it expects 605,000 people to go through the Work programme in 2011-12, and 565,000 in 2012-13, but the Department admits that 250,000 more people, around 850,000, went through the existing schemes in 2009-10.

Chris Grayling: rose-

Liam Byrne: So there we have it-one more broken promise. Next year, in 2011, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that the claimant count will be 1.5 million, the same as this year-[Hon. Members: "Give way!"] In a moment.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. One at a time. If Mr Byrne does not wish to give way, the Minister will have to accept it. I am sure he has noticed that the Minister wants to intervene.

Liam Byrne: I will give way to the Minister in a moment. The whole House wants an explanation of why the promise to get more people back to work has been broken by the Prime Minister, because the Department for Work and Pensions has lost yet another battle to the Treasury.
	The Office for Budget Responsibility says that the claimant count next year will be 1.5 million, the same, by the way, as this year. The problem is undiminished, yet the help is being cut away-the Minister's Department is projecting 250,000 fewer places. When the correspondent from the BBC checked the figures this morning, she was told by a DWP official that she was right. So how is the Government's scheme the biggest back to work plan ever? Is not the truth that the Minister has been done over once more by the Chancellor? Let him explain.

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he hears on the television. It is absolutely clear that the Work programme will offer places through contracted-out providers to more people than was the case under the previous Government, and there is not one single person receiving JSA or employment and support allowance who wants and needs support through the Work programme who will not get it.

Liam Byrne: Will the Minister explain why a DWP official confirmed to the BBC yesterday that 850,000 places were available under a Labour Government, and that that would fall by 250,000 under the present Administration?

Chris Grayling: If the shadow Secretary of State wants a briefing on the Work programme from the DWP, we will be delighted to offer him one. I suggest that he does not take his information from the media.

Liam Byrne: That was not a straight answer to a simple question, which was why a DWP official confirmed the figures to the BBC yesterday and again this morning. The conclusion that the House can draw is a point that was made by the Office for Budget Responsibility-that there is not enough confidence that the Government have a plan in place to get people back to work. Indeed, the OBR has so much confidence in the Government's plan to get people back to work that it is forecasting a declining rate of employment for the rest of this Parliament.
	I do not claim that the future jobs funds was some kind of celestial design. I am sure there are aspects of it that could be improved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) mentioned a moment ago, it was labelled "a good scheme" by the Prime Minister on his trip to Liverpool. The evidence on which it was abolished was simply not there.
	In my constituency we have the highest youth unemployment in the country. The leaders of my jobcentre on Washwood Heath road have consistently said to me that the future jobs fund was one of the best programmes they have ever administered. Overwhelmingly, they say, the young people they send on the programme do not come back and join the dole queue. In their first months the Government rushed out some hasty research on its expense. This is what the Work and Pensions Committee had to say about that scribbled bit of analysis:
	"A robust evaluation of the FJF has yet to be undertaken...insufficient information was available to allow the Department to make a decision to terminate the FJF if this decision was based on its relative cost-effectiveness."
	That is an extraordinary indictment of the Government's rationale. The report says that half of future jobs fund graduates get benefits at seven months, but that is because the programme ends at six months.
	The Government dispute the claim that the scheme created real jobs. I am not sure what Jaguar Land Rover would say about that and the places that it created on the future jobs fund, but surely the point is that when people do not have a job, any job is a good job.

Alison McGovern: Can my right hon. Friend suggest what Age Concern Wirral in my constituency might think of the slashing of the future jobs fund-a scheme that was not only providing work for my constituents, but helping intergenerational relationships in Wirral and looking after some of the most vulnerable people with early onset Alzheimer's?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In a recession private sector jobs are thin on the ground. Anything that keeps young people closer to the labour market, closer to the habits of work and closer to the disciplines of having a job must be a good thing. The lesson from the 1980s, when youth unemployment spiralled to 26%, is that if we let young people get too far away from the habits of work, they are scarred for generations to come.

Anne Begg: When we looked into the future jobs fund in the Select Committee, it became clear that everyone who had experience of it, as a young person in a placement or as an employer, viewed it as a real job that lasted for six months, with a real wage, and was closer to the workplace than anything that could be offered by work experience. That is why it was successful. None of the providers had a bad word to say about it. They thought it was a very good scheme.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend, who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee, makes an important intervention. I hope her comments allow us to strike a note of consensus.
	My final point is about the long-term costs. In all recessions and in all recoveries, it is our young people who face the toughest challenge. That is especially true of the fight that young women in our country now confront. Overwhelmingly, they are working in the public sector. Overwhelmingly, it is they who are exposed to the cuts and the redundancies that have been announced, which now number around 156,000. We must remember the lesson of the 1980s. When youth unemployment was allowed to soar, and allowed to fester for years, communities were damaged for generations. As the Cabinet Office's former chief economist put it this week:
	"If the Government doesn't act it will not only damage the employment prospects of young people now but hurt them for the rest of their lives".
	The motion that we have tabled asks that the Government look again at the lessons of the future jobs fund, be ambitious about the programme that they put in place, and ensure that they learn the lessons from the 1980s. We fear that a generation is being lost to the clumsy behaviour of the present Administration, so I call on the Government this afternoon to think again, to preserve the promise that this country should make to its young people, to reconsider the action that they are taking to ensure that our children will do better and better than us, and to think again before we confront once again a lost generation.

Chris Grayling: Following Mr Speaker's ruling last week, it is clear that it would be utterly unparliamentary to accuse any other hon. Member of being a hypocrite. I therefore give an absolute assurance that I will not do so this afternoon. It is clear, though, that the Opposition Front-Bench team is suffering from a bout of collective amnesia. We should be concerned for their welfare. I looked up the symptoms of amnesia, and it looks like an open and shut case to me. Amnesia is a condition in which memory is disturbed or lost. In some cases it is described as almost total disruption of short-term memory.
	What other possible explanation could there be for what we have just heard? I can only think that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) cannot remember his time in office, so let me remind the House what happened. He and his party stayed in power for 13 years. One of their great missions was to tackle youth unemployment. Their former leader, his former boss, the former Prime Minister and Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), made his maiden speech on the subject back in 1983. When, 14 years later, he took office and became Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said that the problem was a "human tragedy", "sickening" and "an economic disaster". He had a mission for change.
	What happened? Nine years later, in the middle of one of the biggest booms that this country has seen-let us remember that that was at a time when the then Chancellor was saying he had abolished boom and bust-the youth unemployment rate had gone up compared with 1997. It was higher than it had been when the Labour Government took office. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly said from a sedentary position a few moments ago, that was despite the billions of pounds spent on the new deal. In total, £3.8 billion was spent on new deal programmes to get more people into work, yet in the end youth unemployment had increased.

Liam Byrne: Will the Minister explain why his colleague Lord Freud described the progress that we made in tackling youth unemployment, long-term unemployment and unemployment in the round as "remarkable"? Was he deluded, or was he right?

Chris Grayling: Well, we are still waiting for an apology from the right hon. Gentleman for his Government's record. If he wants to quote colleagues, let me quote one of his, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field)-sadly no longer in his place-who is one of the wisest figures in the House. When the statistics were produced in the latter part of the past decade, he said of youth unemployment:
	"We made huge gains at the expense of the Tories in 1997... and now we are not just back to where we started, but in a worse position."
	That is not from someone on the Government side of the House, but from one of the shadow Minister's right hon. Friends. That was not the half of it, because after that things got worse. More money was spent on more programmes to get more people into work, but youth unemployment continued to go up and up. If he wants to intervene, perhaps he can explain why that was.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind invitation. Will he accept that between 1997 and the beginning of the global financial crisis, the claimant count for youth unemployment fell by 14%? To return to my previous question, why did Lord Freud, the Minister responsible for welfare reform and his colleague in the Department, describe our progress as "remarkable"? Was he deluded?

Chris Grayling: I think that the right hon. Gentleman should listen to his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, who said that in 2006 that youth unemployment was worse than when Labour took power, and it carried on getting worse after that. By the time of last year's general election, youth unemployment was still 270,000 higher than it had been in 1997, and still they remained in denial-they remain in denial to this day. The greatest brass neck of all was that two months ago the previous Prime Minister had the effrontery to claim:
	"Tragically Britain is entering yet another decade of youth unemployment."
	Just what does the Labour party think had been happening for the past 10 years when it was in government?
	Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman also does not remember that during the last disastrous years of the Labour Government he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. For those who do not know, that is the person in Government responsible for keeping spending under control. It was not we who built up the biggest peacetime deficit this country has ever known, but him. What did he do to stop his Prime Minister promising to spend money he did not have and making promises to the unemployed that he could not keep? Of course, there was the notorious letter to his successor:
	"Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there is no money. Kind regards and good luck!"
	What characterised the period that he and his colleagues have so conveniently forgotten is that the Labour party spent more and more money and made less and less difference. It is no wonder amnesia has set in.

Tristram Hunt: Will the Minister explain why the Conservative party committed itself to the previous Government's spending plans when in opposition?

Chris Grayling: We are taking decisions in the interests of the country. When I look back to 2005 and 2006, we always knew that Labour was making a mess of things, but we never imagined that they could do it quite so spectacularly.

Toby Perkins: If you realised that they were making such a mess of things, why did you agree to follow those plans? Is it not the right hon. Gentleman who has the amnesia?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Members should not be using "you"-I have no responsibility for this and am certainly not guilty for the unemployment figures.

Chris Grayling: We spent years warning the Labour Government that their spending was getting out of control and that they were mismanaging our economy, and now we see the consequences of what they did. What are we to do about the mess they created? Let us start by debunking some of the myths that they are peddling. To listen to them, one might think that it was all the fault of the coalition. Only last night the shadow Secretary of State stated in a press release:
	"Labour's legacy was falling youth unemployment and a pioneering programme to get 200,000 young people back to work. The Tories scrapped that programme and now youth unemployment has escalated to a record high."
	What a load of complete tosh.
	The programme to which the shadow Secretary of State referred is the future jobs fund. Listening to him, one would think that we had scrapped that programme last May, but as we sit here today, young people are still being referred to placements through the future jobs fund. Although Labour's attempts to support the unemployed had largely proved to be expensive failures, we decided early on that we would not remove them until our alternatives were in place. If the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill is right and things are getting worse, even though all the programmes we inherited from his Government are still running, what on earth does that say about the quality of provision he put in place?

Liam Byrne: It says that this Government have put the recovery in the slow lane. That is why the figures we saw this morning show that private sector employment is dead flat and public sector employment is falling. It is clear that the Government now need a plan B for the economy. It must start with a proper tax on bankers and the Government must use the money to do something to get young people back to work.

Chris Grayling: I just do not think the right hon. Gentleman is listening to what I am saying. We have left in place the support programmes that his Government left to support young unemployed people, and as of today they are all still there. As he keeps pointing out, youth unemployment has risen, so what does that say about the quality of provision he left behind? It says that it was not much good.

Liam Byrne: If the Minister was so dead against it, why is the right hon. Gentleman leaving it in place until the end of March? Since the Government took over, youth unemployment has started to rise, even though the economy has now been in recovery for five quarters. We were bringing youth unemployment down at a time of economic difficulty; since things have got easier, youth unemployment has gone up. How on earth did the right hon. Gentleman achieve that?

Chris Grayling: What we know is that the programmes the right hon. Gentleman left behind were not fit for purpose.

Liam Byrne: Well, why did you keep them?

Chris Grayling: I happen to think that youth unemployment is a significant issue and would rather retain for a few months a programme that is underperforming while we prepare something better than do nothing at all. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that we are doing nothing at all, but the truth is that we are doing just the opposite. It was his party that did nothing at all for a long period of time.
	Let us deal with the argument about the future jobs fund once and for all. It costs around £6,500 per start-net of benefit savings, just under £6,000. That is far more expensive that Labour's other programme for young people, the new deal for young people, which costs around £3,500 per job, and several times more expensive than other elements of the young person's guarantee. It is twice as expensive as an apprenticeship, which I happen to think is of much greater value. Even when we net off all benefit savings, the future jobs fund is still much more expensive than any other option that the previous Administration put in place, and it did not work.
	Colleagues may disagree, but to me a future job is one that lasts and on which a young person can build a career and sustain an opportunity for a lifetime. The future jobs fund did, and does, create temporary short-term placements, mostly through the public sector, where young people did not end up getting the kind of sustained work experience and training leading to a long-term career. The grants that funded the future jobs fund included no incentives whatever to move people into permanent jobs.

David Lammy: The Minister mentioned apprenticeships, and of course the whole House will know that there is an ambitious target to deliver 50,000 apprenticeships over the next year. We are now eight months in, so can he tell us how many new apprenticeships have been delivered?

Chris Grayling: The latest information I have received from my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who are responsible for this, is that apprenticeship vacancies are currently over-subscribed by both employers and employees. We are making good progress towards delivering on that target and will obviously publish full figures in due course. I am confident that we are making inroads in the apprenticeship market and creating opportunities for young people that will last a lifetime, not just six months.

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman please take no lessons from the Labour party on apprenticeships? Some 25,000 were offered in the Scottish budget last week, but Labour, for some reason, voted against it. The Conservatives supported it, so does he know of any reason whatever why Labour cannot support an increase in apprenticeships in Scotland?

Chris Grayling: It makes no sense at all.
	I have a theory. The hon. Gentleman and I agree that apprenticeships are by far the best way of delivering long-term, sustained career opportunities for young people, but the future jobs fund was introduced a few months before the general election, and it was designed to move a large number of young people into temporary placements. He will form his own judgments as to what might have motivated that decision.
	The reality is that, in early tracking-and I accept it is early tracking-of outcomes from the future jobs fund, the very first data showed that a substantial proportion, about 50%, of people who had been on the scheme were already back on benefits seven months after they started; and that did not take into account the fact that in many areas local authorities had extended future jobs fund placements by two or three extra months. In April, we will get a sense of the scheme's real impact, but the first evidence suggests to me that it has not proved to be any more effective than previous new deals or other similar schemes that cost much less money.

Pamela Nash: On that point, do the Government honestly believe that for 50% of young people to be in work a full month after their future jobs fund placements-

Steve Webb: That's not what he said.

Pamela Nash: My point comes from the same statistics. Do the Government honestly believe that 50% of young people being in full-time work a month later is a failure? In our opinion, it is a great success for the fund.

Chris Grayling: If that were the case. In reality, we know that a number of placements continued for seven, eight or nine months after being funded by local money, so the first indications are that the final outcome of the future jobs fund will be no better than other employment programmes, but involve a much higher price.

Liam Byrne: The Minister is helpfully rehearsing a series of his uncertainties about the effectiveness of the future jobs fund. Why will he not therefore back the part of our motion which says that a proper evaluation is needed before a further decision can be taken on what is put in place in the future?

Chris Grayling: I fully accept that there is a difference between us. The right hon. Gentleman believes that the future jobs fund-six-month placements in the public and voluntary sectors-is the right approach. I happen to believe that apprenticeships-two years of training and the possibility of a longer-term career at half the price-is a better one. I am fully prepared to accept that that is a difference between us, but in reality our approach-tens of thousands of extra apprenticeships, which the Scottish Administration have also chosen but, I am surprised to discover, the Labour party opposes in Scotland-is a better route to follow.

Albert Owen: I, too, have supported apprenticeships over the past decade, and they have been a great success, but companies in my constituency, and one in particular, say to me that they cannot take on apprentices because they are faced with a consumption tax rise of 2.5 percentage points in VAT. Is that not one reason why businesses are not taking on apprentices? Indeed, the Minister is unable to tell us how many additional apprenticeships there have been in the past eight months.

Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that businesses in his constituency would have been better off with a 1 percentage point jobs tax rise, as the previous Administration planned? That would have caused more of an increase in unemployment than anything else the Government could have done.
	The right hon. Member made one point, however, which is absolutely right and with which we absolutely agree. Youth unemployment is a major problem for our society and one that absolutely must be tackled. The failure to tackle youth unemployment with schemes that work contributes so much to many other issues that we have to deal with on streets and in neighbourhoods throughout the country.
	Endemic worklessness is underpinned by an ever more complex benefits system that traps people in unemployment. Inter-generational poverty is fuelled by welfare dependency, involving generation after generation of people who have not worked. There is a lack of aspiration, especially among young people who lack role models in a country where almost 2 million children are growing up in workless households. Worst of all, the young people who escape welfare dependency and poverty will still carry the economic scars of unemployment for years afterwards, in terms of lower wages and future employment gaps. That is the harsh reality of Labour's legacy for our young people.

Anne Begg: I worry about the either/or in the Minister's equation. He says that the answer is either apprenticeships or the future jobs fund, but it should be both, because the young people who go into apprenticeships are not the same cohort who suffer the inter-generational worklessness to which he refers. They need extra support, and that is where the future jobs fund has been very, very effective.

Chris Grayling: I accept the principle but do not agree with the detail of what the hon. Lady says. I shall come on to discuss the Work programme and how I aim to use it to deal with the problem that she rightly highlights.
	Opposition Members should remember that over the years they made lots of promises about apprenticeships but consistently under-performed on them. Our job is to make sure we do not do that.

Liam Byrne: The right hon. Gentleman surely accepts that the number of apprenticeships increased from about 63,000 in 1997 to more than 250,000 by the time we left office. Surely that is a record of success in backing apprenticeships, and I am glad that it is a point of consensus on both sides of the House.

Chris Grayling: I remember the right hon. Gentleman's former boss standing in this House and promising about 400,000 apprenticeships. When Labour left office, the actual figure was 240,000, so I shall take no lessons from the Opposition about delivering promises on apprenticeships. We plan to deliver, and are already well on the way to delivering, 50,000 extra apprenticeships this year, 75,000 extra by the end of this Parliament and more apprenticeships for young people between 16 and 18 years old. Those apprenticeships will cost about half that of each future jobs fund placement, but they will deliver the skills that last a young person a lifetime, and the opportunity to progress on to a secure career path.

Alison McGovern: I thank the Minister for giving way, because this is a truly important point. When I have asked parliamentary questions about targets for the number of apprenticeships, the Government have told me that they no longer set such targets, so will the Minister make clear the status of the pledge that he has just made?

Chris Grayling: We fund a certain number of apprenticeships, and there are 50,000 extra this year. They are being filled at the moment, as we speak. We will fund 50,000 extra apprenticeships this year and 75,000 extra throughout the course of the comprehensive spending review. A few days ago BIS set out a clear goal to increase the number of apprenticeships in this country to 350,000. We have been in office for nine months; the Labour party was in office for 13 years, and it consistently under-delivered on apprenticeships throughout those 13 years.

David Lammy: The Minister has been extraordinarily generous in giving way, and I am very grateful, but he has not been able to tell the House how many apprenticeships he has delivered in the past nine months. I set up the graduate talent pool, which involved internships for graduates. Alongside the internships that were offered at the Conservative party event recently, how many internships have been delivered for our graduates in the past nine months?

Chris Grayling: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what we are doing to get young people into the workplace for the first time.
	One of the first things I received on entering government was an e-mail from the mother of a young woman who had arranged a month's work experience for herself but been told by Jobcentre Plus that she could not do it, because the rules, which the previous Administration put in place, prevented her from doing so. We have therefore changed things.
	We now encourage work experience. Through Jobcentre Plus, we will actively find work experience for young people, without their losing their benefits, and give them the opportunity to solve the age-old problem whereby, if someone cannot get the experience, they do not get the job, but, if they do not get the job, they cannot get the experience.
	We have also strengthened volunteering opportunities for young people, and we will have Prince's Trust representation in every job centre, so that we can steer young people towards voluntary work and take advantages of the trust's skills to help unemployed young people.

Stewart Jackson: Is my right hon. Friend as incredulous as I am at the Opposition's faux outrage? They are members of the party that, during 13 years of government, imported low-wage, low-skilled people from eastern Europe-more than 1 million of them-and pushed thousands of young people into welfare dependency and on to the dole. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is collective amnesia among those on the Labour Benches. One of the things they have also conveniently forgotten, which was revealed by one of their number, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, is that over the course of those years nearly 4 million new jobs were created in this country, the vast majority of which went to people coming to the UK from overseas. The Labour Government completely failed to make a serious inroad into the nearly 5 million people on benefits, or to get British people into what was once described as the goal of the previous Prime Minister-British jobs for British workers.

David Lammy: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Grayling: No, I have given way enough, and I am going to make progress.  [ Interruption. ] When Labour Members have some useful contributions to make, I might give way again.
	We now need to talk about what we are going to do about this. The Work programme, which we will introduce this summer, will, I hope, go a significant way towards dealing some of the problems to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) referred. We have huge challenges in the labour market, with young people who face huge difficulties in their backgrounds. For them, the Work programme will deliver specialist intervention after just three months in the dole queue-much earlier than it has ever been done before. It will be a revolution in back-to-work support in Britain. It will provide a level of personalised support that we have not seen before, because in order to survive in a payment-by-results regime, the providers will need to cater for the individual. It is the kind of revolution we have needed for years-the kind that was promised in Labour rhetoric but never delivered.

Liam Byrne: rose -

Chris Grayling: I will give way once more, and then I am going to wrap up.

Liam Byrne: It is curious that the Minister's colleague Lord Freud noted in his report:
	"The New Deals have been enormously successful".
	He also said:
	"The creation of Jobcentre Plus...is...seen as...a model for effective public service delivery."
	He further commented:
	"The Government has made strong, and in some respects remarkable, progress over the last ten years."
	I hope that those are lessons on which the Minister can draw.
	There has been some dispute about the numbers that the BBC published. Will the Minister now set out for the House his assumptions for this year, next year and the year after about how many people will flow through the Work programme? If he is disputing the figures, let us hear it from him-what are they?

Chris Grayling: We published those figures in December. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman read the invitation to tender for the Work programme. I will tell him, however, that the number of people who went through contracted programmes in the last year of the Labour Government was well under 600,000, and that next year's projections for the Work programme are over 600,000. As for my noble Friend Lord Freud, if he thought that the Labour Government were doing so well, why does the right hon. Gentleman think that he joined us?
	The Opposition were in government for 13 years, during which they systematically delivered for this country a higher level of youth unemployment than they inherited. They spent almost £4 billion on new deal programmes, much of it aimed at getting young people into work. Even while all that money was being spent, we saw youth unemployment grow between 2005 and early 2007 and rise steadily in the run-up to the recession. Back in 2008, the OECD published a report raising concerns about what the British Government were doing and stating that only in Britain was youth unemployment rising, while everywhere else it was falling.
	So let us have no more accusations from Labour Members about the coalition's record. We have been in office for nine months. We inherited from them 600,000 young people who left school, college or university and have never worked. We are moving ahead with plans that will make a real difference to those young people-through the Work programme, through apprenticeships, and through the schemes we are introducing at Jobcentre Plus level to help them into employment.

Joan Ruddock: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Grayling: No, I am going to wind up now.
	The Opposition were in government for 13 years, and they failed abjectly. They spent billions; they delivered nothing at all. They left youth unemployment as a national challenge and a national disgrace-part of a legacy of chaos and failure from a Labour Government who ran out of money and ran out of ideas. It is time that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and other Labour Members recognised the damage that they did to this country, and time they realised that it will be a long, long time before the people of this country even start to consider the possibility that they might ever be fit to govern again.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Before I bring other Members in, let me just say that the Front Benchers have taken up quite a lot of time because of interventions. We now have an eight-minute limit on speeches. Not all Members have to take all eight minutes, and fewer interventions will mean that I can get more people in. I call Mr Chris Ruane.

Chris Ruane: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate.
	In 2002, the unemployment statistics for my county of Denbighshire showed that out of its 34 wards, 50% of the unemployment was in two wards alone-Rhyl West and Rhyl South West. Rhyl South West contained the council estate where I grew up and lived for 26 years. Many of those unemployed people were related to me. Over the past nine years, it has been a personal crusade of mine to do something about that. In 2002, I established an unemployment working group, with people from the college, the Department for Work and Pensions, Jobcentre Plus, the police, economic regeneration bodies and the Welsh Assembly Government getting together around the table to create jobs for people, including young people, in my constituency.
	In 2007, the DWP agreed that Rhyl could be one of 15 city strategy pilots for the whole of the UK. Although it is not a city but a town of only 27,000 people, Rhyl was included mainly as a pilot scheme for 52 seaside towns in the UK. Since then, we have made great strides in putting young people back to work in my constituency. The leader of the people who have administered the future jobs fund for the Rhyl city strategy is Ali Thomas, a dedicated professional in getting young people back to work. This is what she said about the Government's decision to abolish the future jobs fund:
	"The subsidy enabled employers to consider taking on long term unemployed people, many with multiple problems. They were able to do this because of the subsidy. The employers were taking a risk with these young people but the subsidy made the risk worthwhile."
	She went on to say:
	"It wasn't a one way street. Employers gained well motivated young workers. Nearly 60% of those that completed the placement scheme went on to gain long term employment with the employer."
	Apart from those 60%, a further 10% to 20% went on into full-time education at the fantastic Rhyl college, built by the Labour Government-the first college we have ever had, and a £10 million investment. A 70% to 80% placement rate in full-time education or full-time employment is not bad by anyone's standards.
	I ask the Minister, who is chatting away down there, what targets he is setting for his new Work scheme: 50%, 60%, 70% or 80%. I hope that he will intervene and tell me. He did not know the figures on the number of apprenticeships or internships but can he tell me his target for full-time employment placements of young people on the schemes that he is going to put in place?

Chris Grayling: The Deputy Speaker does not want extended interventions, so I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to the invitation to tender for the Work programme, which will give him some of the details he wants.

Chris Ruane: The Minister does not know.
	From my perspective as a constituency MP, and from that of young people affected in my constituency, the decision to end the future jobs fund is nothing short of political spite. The Work and Pensions Committee report said that the DWP
	"should conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the Future Jobs Fund and publish the results."
	This obviously should have been done before the closure of the FJF. That is common sense, but it was not done.

Yasmin Qureshi: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Ruane: No-I am afraid that I might get my head bitten off.
	Why did the coalition Government not take evidence? They could have come to my constituency and consulted Ali Thomas and the young people taking part in these schemes, who were gaining confidence, experience, camaraderie and esprit de corps in their groups of 10 to 15, and feeling pride and joy in being able to plan their first holiday, take their first driving lesson, or gain a certificate from the local college, and in having meaningful work with a meaningful pay packet at the end of the week. I will be sending the Minister, who is still not listening, a DVD made by those young people about their job placements. I hope that he will look at it and get back to me.
	When I stared those young people in the eye at the presentations, they were full of pride and joy at their achievements-achievements that will be dashed by the Conservative party. One of the main attractions to the young people in the scheme was that it was a proper job with a proper rate of pay. They could be sacked if they did not turn up or if they were not motivated enough, and they had to be punctual. Their reward was the potential for a job at the end of the six-month placement.
	Shorter, cheaper, unsubsidised placements will not have the same take-up or buy-in among young people. Such schemes that were introduced by the Conservatives in the past were pilloried and laughed at by the young people who attended them. YTS was called "young, thick and stupid" by young people. They want no part in such schemes. They want quality schemes like those introduced by the previous Government and abolished by this Government.
	The future jobs fund has the respect of the young people who have participated, the employers who have taken them on and the people who have administered it. The main reason given for its abolition was the cost. The Government deemed £6,500 too much to pay to turn around a young life. I ask Government Members who send their children to private schools how much they pay a year to turn their children's lives around. There is one rule for the rich and another for the poor.

Michael Dugher: Thirty grand for Eton.

Chris Ruane: I am informed by my hon. Friend that it is £30,000 for Eton. Under the scheme, its cost £6,500 to turn around a young life. But no, that is too much. There are a million young people-and the number is rising-on the dole. What will be the cost if they fall into a life of crime? If that positive path is denied them, they might turn down a negative path. It costs £50,000 a year to keep a person incarcerated. That is money down the drain.

Sajid Javid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Ruane: No, I would get told off. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I feel that I would.
	My local future jobs fund is administered by Rhyl city strategy and is one of the most effective in the country. It had a monthly target to put 320 people back to work. It was bang on every month. It was so effective that it had to hunt for another 100 young people to put back to work, which it got through the WCVA. That effective partnership has been snuffed out by the Conservative party. A key part of the success of the FJF in my constituency was that the funding was delivered to a local partnership. That minimised bureaucracy and red tape, which the Conservative party is always banging on about-there was no red tape or bureaucracy in the FJF in Rhyl. That was welcomed by the employer.
	Shorter-term, unsubsidised schemes will not work. They did not work in the past, and they will not work in the future.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am sure that every Member of this House believes it is a tragedy that so many of our young people are not in work, education or training. Nearly two-thirds of unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds have not done any kind of work since leaving school or college. That trend has accelerated over a number of years; not just over the eight months of this Government, as the motion states.
	The motion is right about the need for urgent action to tackle long-term joblessness among our young people. However, the future jobs fund is not the answer, as the Minister has explained. It has been expensive and ineffective. What we need is support that delivers real skills and jobs, and that adds to the employability of young people. With that in mind, I endorse the Government's commitment to investing further in apprenticeships. I believe that the Work programme will provide personalised help based on individual needs, through working with private and voluntary providers. Ultimately, we need more engagement with employers to equip young people with the skills that will enable them to find work.
	So far, this debate has centred on what we do to help young people when they become unemployed. I would like to talk about initiatives in my constituency that are intended to prevent young people from becoming unemployed. That means investing in skills training for young people while they are of school age. In areas such as mine, where comparatively few young people go on to university, such initiatives are extremely important if we are to get the proportion of people not in employment, training or work down further.
	The first initiative is run by one of the new academies in my constituency, the Gateway academy in Tilbury, which has gone out of its way to develop a strong focus on employment options and to offer advice to its pupils. It has developed a curriculum that is tailored to the needs of its pupils and to the job opportunities in the area. In addition, it has established a project called Gateway Connect, which uses a redundant industrial workshop as a strong vocational learning facility to offer pupils work-based training and vocational qualifications. Through that project, 18 pupils have been able to pursue vocational training and only two are not in employment, education or training now that they have left. That shows the impact of such strong work-based projects. With that focus, the proportion of pupils who become NEETs on leaving the school has fallen from 18% in 2008 to a mere 4% in 2010. That makes the case for tackling this problem in schools, rather than waiting until young people are on the dole.
	There are other projects in Thurrock that are not based on the school curriculum. In a week in which we have considered the big society, I would like to share with the House some examples of imaginative and proactive partnership working that I have witnessed on the ground in Thurrock to give young people more skills. Thurrock trade school offers evening classes to children aged 14 to 16 who want to learn a trade. It offers courses in carpentry, bricklaying, plumbing and electrics. Young people attend two-hour classes over 12 weeks. The courses are sponsored by Morrison, a local building contractor, which provides tools and mentoring to guide young people towards the opportunities that might be open to them through pursuing the training. Morrison has also engaged as apprentices people who have been through the courses.
	The background to Morrison's involvement is that it was awarded the housing maintenance contract by Thurrock council. As part of that contract, the council asked it to invest in such training. That is a brilliant illustration of how imagination can be used to make use of commercial partnerships to deliver outcomes for the benefit of the entire society. That is the kind of thinking we want to encourage as we build the big society. The example of Thurrock trade school also illustrates the value of working with employers, because they will invest in the skills that they need. We all benefit from such involvement.
	Finally, we need to open the eyes of young people to the opportunities that work-based training can bring. With that in mind, I commend another initiative to the House: Thurrock's Next Top Boss awards. Next Top Boss is another partnership scheme that is run by Thurrock council, the Thurrock development corporation and a large number of private employers such as Procter & Gamble, Carpetright and other big employers that operate in Thurrock. The competition is open to 17 to 19-year-olds. The objective for the employers is to help equip teenagers with the skills, confidence and contacts they need to enter the world of work. Competitors are invited to take part in events in which they can show all their skills, such as working with a team and responding to projects. The employers that participate can show the vast assortment of careers that are available in their organisations. The incentive for the young people is that they compete for prizes, including gift vouchers, work placements and even jobs. It is, dare I say it, "The Apprentice", Thurrock-style. Central to its success is the involvement of local employers that are attracted to the opportunity to identify future apprentices for their workplace and to showcase the opportunities that they offer.
	I do not mourn the passing of the future jobs fund. I look forward to the Government's reforms delivering improvements in the opportunities available to young people. I hope that Thurrock's big society examples will inspire other employers, councils, schools and voluntary organisations, as they consider how they can contribute to tackling joblessness among our young people.

Michael Dugher: I am proud to say that the future jobs fund was inspired by the review by the excellent leader of Barnsley council, Steve Houghton. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) for his warm and fitting tribute to Steve Houghton earlier in the debate. Barnsley was one of the first councils to implement the scheme, which has made an important difference to many, not only in my constituency but across the country. Since its inception in 2009, the future jobs fund has given young people and the long-term unemployed valuable opportunities by creating real work, with real experience and real job prospects. In Barnsley, a third of those on the programme have already gone into jobs. It is hoped that 200 people will be in employment before the funding regrettably expires in March.
	The Government's decision to scrap the fund-a scheme that would have created up to 200,000 jobs for young people up and down the country-is sadly just another example of how they are letting young people down. Ending the future jobs fund was one of the Government's early decisions. Since then, the education maintenance allowance has gone, tuition fees have been trebled, we are seeing cuts to Sure Start and the school building programme is being cut across the country. Tackling youth unemployment has been a challenge for all Governments, but thanks to initiatives such as the future jobs fund, youth unemployment fell by nearly 25,000 between February and April 2010.
	Since this Government were elected, there has been a massive jump in youth unemployment. Figures out today show that it has risen to a record high, with more than one in five 16 to 24-year-olds now out of work-a rise of 66,000 people to nearly 1 million. In my constituency, nearly 14% of the population are aged between 18 and 24, yet that age group accounts for 35% of people claiming jobseeker's allowance. We are facing a youth unemployment crisis in this country the scale of which we have not seen since the 1980s. If the Government do not act, this will not only damage our young people's employment prospects, but affect them for the rest of their lives. It is well documented that early spells of unemployment for an individual, result in reduced employment prospects and lower earnings over their lifetime. Today, for every 100,000 people that this Government put out of work, £500 million is added to the cost of paying jobseeker's allowance, so theirs is not even a strategy for reducing the deficit.
	The fundamental flaw in the Government's Work programme is that there is simply not enough work. They fail to understand that in parts of the country there are still unemployment blackspots. Focusing on job output may be fine in some parts of the country, where the economy may be expanding, but it will not work in more deprived areas such as Barnsley, where there are still serious structural problems in the local economy and where simply not enough jobs are available. In my constituency, there are currently just over 190 Jobcentre Plus vacancies for more than 2,500 people claiming jobseeker's allowance. That amounts to 14 claimants for every job vacancy. However, this Government's approach is solely about getting people into existing jobs. There is no policy for either job creation or the growth that would create those jobs, particularly in the weaker economies.
	The Government have to think again, as our motion says. There is an overwhelming need for a job creation programme targeted particularly on those areas with the highest unemployment. The main criticism of the future jobs fund is that not enough jobs were created in the private sector. We all want to see more jobs in the private sector, and in my constituency we will have 2,000 more jobs.

Nia Griffith: Does my hon. Friend agree that, right in the middle of a recession, the whole point was for the public sector to provide some of those jobs-in construction, for example-to keep people's skills up, ready for when the private sector picked up?

Michael Dugher: My hon. Friend is exactly right.
	Those 2,000 private sector jobs in my constituency are coming from ASOS, the online fashion company-I do not see too many takers in the Chamber for its clothes, but we live in hope-but those jobs did not happen by accident. The reason 2,000 jobs are coming to my constituency is that when Labour was in government, we built the facilities that will house those jobs. We built the road that attracted the company in the first place. The public sector plays a big part in supporting private sector jobs.

Sajid Javid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Dugher: No; I want to make some progress.
	We want to see more private sector jobs, but the Government need to move away from the mentality that says that public sector jobs are not, as the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) said, "real" jobs. In many parts of the country, the choice is not between a public sector job and a private sector job; it is between a job and no job. The criticism that too many of the jobs were in the public sector-a criticism that I share-is not a reason to scrap the scheme, but a reason to strengthen it. It is an argument to expand it to include more private sector businesses in those unemployment blackspots and to invest in industry.
	The positive benefits of employment cannot be overstated. Most people cite a lack of confidence and skills as the reason for not finding work. Having a job is good for people's well-being and their physical and mental health. It provides them with an opportunity to prove themselves, giving them an identity, confidence and self-worth-the pride that comes from having money in their pocket and the dignity of knowing that they have just earned it. Everyone knows that it is also easier to get a job for those who already have one.
	We saw the impact of previous Conservative Governments in areas such as the one that I am proud to represent-a whole generation of young people growing up with little or no hope of getting a job. It is clear that this Government have not learnt from those mistakes, and are once again letting young people down. There is a growing consensus that the Government need a plan B to get the economy right-growth has stalled-but it is equally obvious that they need a plan A to deal with unemployment and, in particular, the lack of opportunities for young people in my constituency and throughout the rest of the country.

Jennifer Willott: It is worrying how many young people are unemployed at the moment. We can bandy figures around all day, but the figure that sticks with me is that one in five young people between 16 and 24 are out of work. That is a worrying-indeed, horrifying-statistic, and is a tragedy for every one of them, and for their families and the communities around them too. However, when we look more deeply it becomes clear that this situation is, in part, the Labour legacy, as has been mentioned over and over today. The number of people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months has increased. This Government have not yet been in power for more than 12 months, so we are clearly dealing with a legacy left by the last Labour Government. As a result of Labour messing up the economy, the Government are having to deal with a serious financial mess and the unemployment that goes alongside that.
	People have talked about complacency about the youth unemployment figures. I have not seen complacency on either side of the House today-clearly people are seriously concerned-but if Labour Members were that concerned they could have done significantly more when they were in office, rather than leaving a lot of young people on the shelf. Labour could have done more in power to ensure that people had the opportunities that they needed.

David Lammy: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jennifer Willott: I will not give way. Everyone will have the chance to speak later if they wish.
	As has been mentioned, unemployment among young people has gradually increased since 2002, and that was during the good times, so clearly in the bad times it will not be easy to get people back into work. It is now even harder for the new Government to get them into work, as they have already been out of work for longer, and we know that the longer people have been out of work and the further they are from the jobs market, the more effort, money and time it takes to get them back into work. However, the problem is that the future jobs fund was not working. It was created to ease youth unemployment and make the figures look better; it was not established to create long-term sustainable jobs. Opposition Members have mentioned that many times, but it is not that public sector jobs are not real jobs-of course they are-but rather, that the jobs created for the future jobs fund were not real jobs. They were short-term, six-month placements created for the purpose of the fund; they were not jobs that were sustainable in the long run. That has been borne out by the initial information on what people have done after being placed by the future jobs fund. About 50% of people were back on working-age benefits after seven months-one month after finishing their placement. Of those in a comparable group who found work through other programmes or found work for themselves, only 35% were back on jobseeker's allowance after seven months. Clearly, the future jobs fund has not been working. It is performing less well than the other programmes that the previous Government put in place.

Christopher Leslie: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jennifer Willott: No; I want to ensure that there is time for as many people as possible to speak.
	The future jobs fund is not cost-effective. It costs a lot, and that money could be better spent. In theory, it was aimed at those who were furthest from the jobs market, but it seems that a large number of those people in placements were graduates. For example, about 20% of the people taken on by Birmingham city council had at least one degree.

Liam Byrne: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jennifer Willott: I will not.
	The future jobs fund was clearly not working in the way that it was supposed to. As with many of Labour's programmes, the words and the theory were positive but the practice was poor. It was not properly designed or monitored. It simply was not thought through. It did not deliver sustainable employment for young people.
	Instead, we need to create a skilled work force and generate jobs for those skilled young people. Apprenticeships make people more employable, potentially by the people by whom they have been trained, but also by similar businesses. CBI evidence shows that 90% of apprentices find employment or become self-employed immediately after their training ends, which means that apprenticeships are clearly far more successful than the future jobs fund.
	The group that concern me the most are those who are furthest from the jobs market. For many of them, apprenticeships are inappropriate. They are a particularly vulnerable group, and in the past they have been particularly ill-served. We need to ensure that the Work programme will work, and that the Government learn the lessons from previous programmes to ensure that those vulnerable young people are helped back into work.
	I am glad to see that, under the Work programme, young people will get help at a much earlier stage than they do under the future jobs fund. They will be referred to the Work programme when they have been on jobseeker's allowance for nine months, rather than 12 months as happens under the FJF. More tailored support will be available for those with the most severe disadvantages, and they will be referred after three months if they are not in employment, education or training. All the evidence shows that we need to get in there as early as possible if we are to have an impact. Even with all that evidence, however, the previous Government did not quite achieve their aims, so we really need to ensure that we learn those lessons now.
	In addition, under the Work programme, the fees will be structured so that providers will get more if they help those who are furthest from the jobs market and keep them in work for longer. We hope that that will make a real difference to that group of people. Again, that is something that the previous Government tried to do, but they did not go quite far enough. I hope that the coalition Government will learn the lessons from that and ensure that these measures are implemented.
	Following the demise of the future jobs fund, we all want to see much better, tailored support aimed at the needs of young people. We cannot afford to damage the career prospects of another generation of young people, as happened in the 1980s and early '90s. We have to learn the lessons, particularly the ones that the previous Government did not learn from the work that they were doing.
	The numbers are bad, and the individual stories are heart-wrenching. I am sure that we have all had people coming to see us in our surgeries who are at their wits' end and absolutely desperate to find work. We need to ensure that another generation is not left behind, but the Opposition's proposals in the motion today are simply not the way to do it. The future jobs fund has not worked so far, and given that the number of young people unemployed for more than 12 months has been increasing, why on earth do they think it will start working now? It is time to adopt a new approach, to ensure that we do not leave hundreds of thousands of young people behind. Instead, we must give them the skills and the confidence that they need to build a future for themselves and our economy.

Ian Lavery: I would like to focus on the young people who have lost their jobs. They are real people, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss on the Floor of the House of Commons the betrayal of those young people. They represent the nation's future, but they have been bruised, battered and neglected. They are not needed and not worthy-that is the message the Government are pushing to those people.
	We have a serious problem, in that those young people are in danger of becoming the lost generation. Employment is a major social ingredient in anyone's life, and in modern, civilised society. It gives self-esteem and confidence. It breeds purpose in individuals. It is a rung on life's ladder, which can often be quite cruel. As we debate this issue today, we see an increase of 66,000 young people who are unemployed.
	The constituency statistics in the information from the House of Commons Library show that, in the 100 worst-affected constituencies, there are 10 applicants for every job vacancy. On average, across all constituencies, there are five applicants for every job. In my constituency, however, 14.3 people apply for every vacancy. Is it any wonder that our young people, our future generations, feel so let down and demoralised? They feel utterly betrayed by the actions of this Government. Is it any wonder that they are taking to the streets and demonstrating in their tens of thousands in every city against the Government's attack on young people? They are organising and giving voice to their views. As politicians, we should listen to their call for opportunities, for a chance in life, for dignity, for decency and for equality. That should be readily recognised by the Government.

Sajid Javid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Lavery: No!  [ Laughter. ] Go on, then. I apologise for that.

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for so graciously giving way. There is a lot that hon. Members on different sides of the House can disagree on, but will he acknowledge, perhaps in a bipartisan spirit, that some of the Government's welfare reforms-for example, the introduction of the universal credit, the increase in apprenticeships, and the move to ensure that people are better off in work than out of work-are a step in the right direction?

Ian Lavery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I believe that we should wait to see the details of the universal credit. The devil is often in the detail.
	The future jobs fund was abolished within days of the election by the Tories. At this stage, I must offer my personal view that I do not accept that this is a coalition Government. It is a full-blooded, blue-blooded Tory Government, propped up by a few desperate Liberal Democrats who are prostituting every principle that they have ever stood for, and abandoning every young person in this country.
	The future jobs fund offered a golden opportunity to 200,000 people, but those full-time jobs will be wasted. They were much needed in communities such as mine. The future jobs fund was sowing the seeds of success, and it was proving successful to those young people. It was giving young people who had never had a job before a much-needed break in life. They need and deserve an explanation from the Government. They need to know why, immediately after taking office, the Government abolished a great opportunity, perhaps one of the last opportunities that they will be given for a long time.
	I am aware of the eight-minute limit on speeches, Mr Deputy Speaker, but at this point a triple whammy comes to mind: the attack on education maintenance allowance, the increase in tuition fees, and the cancellation of the future jobs fund. People will not forget, and they are asking now why the attack on young people continues and where it will end. The number of unemployed young people has risen by 66,000, and the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts huge further increases in the not-too-distant future. Everything in the garden is not rosy for our young people or for our future. Every 100,000 people who are out of work cost the Treasury £500 million. We cannot, in any circumstances, return to the days of the 1980s, when 26% of people were unemployed.
	In my constituency, there are 14.3 applicants for every job vacancy. Unemployment in the region stands at 9.6%, and 46% of working women in the northern region are employed in the public sector. In my constituency, the public sector employs 11,000 women-68% of working women-and more than 50% of men. How dare any Member say in the House that public sector workers deserve redundancy before anyone else? We are talking about teachers, firemen, policemen, council workers and cleaners. How dare anyone suggest that their jobs are meaningless because the private sector should rule?
	The attack on public services in my constituency will be unbelievably harsh. The creation of 200,000 jobs through the future jobs fund would have been immensely valuable. Moreover, 10,000 jobs would have been created in the north-east in the renewable energy, environmental and emerging low-carbon technology sectors, and 15,000 would have been created in social enterprises. That is much-needed employment. The Government's action in abolishing the future jobs fund is an absolute disgrace: it was politically motivated and ideologically driven.
	I will not forget 20 October 2010, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the loss of 490,000 jobs. I shall not forget the triumphant, jubilant cheers from the Government Benches. That made me sick to the pit of my stomach. The people will not forget, and I will not forget. I am pleased to have been able to take part in the debate, and I support the motion wholeheartedly.

Nick de Bois: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). I hope that he will understand if I return to some of his more outrageous comments a little later. First, let me say how pleased I am that we are debating youth unemployment: it is a major issue, and it is clear that Members on both sides of the House understand the need to discuss it.
	Before I came to the House, I derived real pleasure from being able to offer someone a job in our company. I also understood the absolute nightmare of having to make someone unemployed in difficult times. I hope that Members on both sides of the House have approached the debate with the shared goal of alleviating what are very difficult circumstances. I also feel, however, that the debate should be put into context. It takes place against a background of economic failure, a legacy of banks that were not supporting business, a massive decline in manufacturing, and an essentially unbalanced economy.
	Governments can take a wide range of measures to ease the problem of youth unemployment, but in my view nothing is more important than enabling the economy to grow at a sustainable level so that business can expand, create those much-needed jobs and, indeed, flourish. That is why difficult measures are being taken: vital measures to deal with deficit control, and positive fiscal measures to support investment. We are seeing changes in employment law, export support for small and medium-sized enterprises, and a review of many of the welfare schemes and benefits out there to encourage people to move from a life of dependence to one of independence.
	I am therefore somewhat disappointed by the fact that the debate is focusing almost entirely on the future jobs fund. It was, I am sure, a project born of good intentions, and I admit that there are good stories about it from various parts of the country. The fact is, however-this brings me back to the hon. Gentleman's speech-that we were creating a large number of temporary jobs, predominantly in the public sector, which did not offer a sustainable solution to the problem of youth unemployment. I hope, indeed I know, that I speak for Government Members when I say that any suggestion that we were disparaging public sector workers is utterly unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he has had his say, his say was wrong, and the House should not accept it.
	What is wrong, and what we do challenge, is the temporary nature of many of those jobs. We intend to deliver permanent, sustainable jobs, and I believe that most of them will have to be in the private sector. If Members are not willing to take my word for it, as I am sure some are not, let me tell them what the Confederation of British Industry said to the Work and Pensions Committee.
	"We are concerned the programme for the most part failed to deliver a long-term strategy to tackle youth unemployment. While there are undoubtedly some successes within the programme, the CBI argued there needs to be better business involvement and a greater focus on long-term job sustainability with future programmes. The Work Programme is the way to deliver this."
	I am surprised that the Opposition have not raised some of the other measures that we have had to consider to help employers take people on. It is beyond question that employers who feel restricted by the heavy hand of all the employment legislation that has grown up over the last decade will think twice not just about employing people, but about retaining them. They may feel that someone who has worked for the company for nearly a year-just before the employment legislation protection kicks in-needs more training or help because he is not quite up to the job. At that point they will seriously consider whether it would be better to lose that employee immediately, before the rules kick in and cause difficulties in future, than to invest more time in him. That is a trade-off governed by excessively burdensome regulation. Such a restriction is not acceptable, and I am pleased that the Government are loosening it to provide flexibility for both employers and employees.  [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) wishes to intervene, all that he need do is ask, rather than chuntering from a sedentary position. I should be more than happy to take his intervention; otherwise I shall press on.
	There is, I believe, evidence that we will produce more long-term sustainable jobs through apprenticeships. What evidence is there for this? I witnessed the hunger of those who wish to work and the appetite for recruitment in the private sector when I held a jobs fair in my constituency. It was put together without any cost to the state, and we managed to engage with local businesses and those who were looking for work, either immediately or in the near future. We brought in the voluntary sector too, so that those who wished to keep their CVs active and engaged could do so. We brought more than 40 companies together after a two-month period. Hundreds of visitors turned up and companies such as Johnson Matthey offered apprenticeships. That company is running a programme of apprenticeships which is not supported by the state but which will offer sustainable, long-term jobs to some of those who successfully get through. We had people willing to go to work in the voluntary sector, such is their appetite to keep their CVs active. I admire them and their hunger. Above all, we should note that at this jobs fair the jobs fundamentally came from the private sector in the local economy, thus keeping local jobs for local people. That is the future, which is why I believe that the combination of our enterprise economies, our welfare reforms and our support for apprenticeships will lift us out of this situation and help tackle youth unemployment.

Katy Clark: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and to speak in favour of the motion, which is far from narrow. It goes much further than simply criticising the cancellation of the future jobs fund, which would have created 200,000 jobs. The motion states clearly our belief
	"that the Government's economic policies have slowed economic growth, raised youth unemployment and created the highest graduate unemployment for over a decade".
	It is in that context that we need to have this debate. As Members from all parts of the House have said, youth unemployment is a significant problem in this country at this time. Given the economic figures that we are seeing, particularly the most recent growth figures indicating that the economy is shrinking and the revised figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility showing that levels of growth are projected to reduce, it is incredibly important to have this debate.
	It is unfortunate that the future jobs fund and apprenticeships are being counterposed. The number of apprenticeships created by the previous Labour Government has been mentioned, and I would have liked Labour to have done even more on that. I hope that this Government will set about an ambitious apprenticeships scheme, but we have not seen it yet. I assure the Government that if they do so, they will get the full support of Labour Members, because we fully recognise the value of apprenticeships in both the public sector and the private sector.
	My constituency has a strong tradition of public sector apprenticeships in engineering and in organisations such as the Ministry of Defence. Individuals have been trained in the public sector and have worked in it for a number of years, and have then gone on to work in other parts of industry and in the private sector. We want to encourage these apprenticeships and we want the Government to take this on board. Labour Members wish to see policies that will develop our industrial and manufacturing sector, that will support apprenticeships and that will do everything possible to create employment in the private sector. That is particularly important in constituencies such as mine, which faces a significant problem of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment.
	My part of the world traditionally had a strong industrial and manufacturing sector, but those manufacturing jobs have gone over the course of many decades. In the 1970s, 17,000 people were employed by ICI at Ardeer in my constituency; 7,000 or 8,000 jobs went in the 1980s at the Glengarnock steel mill; and even when I was at school in the 1980s some 10,000 miners worked at the Killoch pit in south Ayrshire. So I come from a part of the world that has a strong and proud industrial past, but which has been devastated. The manufacturing base is now comparatively weak and we are dependent on the public sector to replace the jobs we had, so the 500,000 public sector jobs cut that the Government are proposing will have a disproportionate impact on areas such as mine.
	My constituency has probably the worst youth unemployment problem in Scotland. The statistics show that 20% of our young people between the ages of 16 and 24 are receiving benefits, which is the highest level in Scotland, and that 14.7% of our 18 to 24-year-olds are claiming jobseeker's allowance.
	So it is very fair to say that the part of the world that I represent faces significant challenges, and it is the duty of any Government to create policies that address those challenges and create the economic environment that will ensure that young people are able to get employment. There has been a significant increase in the number of young people in my constituency going into further and higher education over the past 20 years, which is to be welcomed. However, further and higher education is not necessarily the best choice for every young person. It may be something to consider at a later stage, but well-paid employment that gives hope for the future is the best option for some young people.
	We have heard tragic stories today of young people who are unable to get jobs, and we know from experience that it takes many decades to recover from a period of high unemployment. All sorts of social problems are associated with high levels of unemployment and youth unemployment, and we spend many hours debating how to grapple with those. Such problems include crime, and drug and alcohol misuse, and they arise when we have the kinds of poverty that are associated with unemployment. Many of the benefit changes being proposed by this Government will disproportionately affect the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed. I am thinking of policies such as reducing housing benefit for those who are unemployed for 12 months or more- there are more and more of those people. The number of 18 to 24-year-olds in Scotland claiming jobseeker's allowance for six months or more has risen by 119% in the past two years, and the number of these people out of work for 12 months or more has risen by 349%. So we face significant challenges.
	We have heard criticism of the future jobs fund today, but all the feedback I have received in my constituency, both from people using the fund and from those placing people on to it, has been very positive. The motion calls for an independent evaluation of the fund. We need that to be done, because the future jobs fund is one of the few schemes that is delivering for young people. We need to do everything we can to give young people political priority, so I think it is a tragedy that the scheme is being cancelled. I call on this Government to do more. They should not only support the future jobs fund, but take other steps to give young people the future they deserve. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for letting me contribute to this debate.

Damian Hinds: It is good to strike a bipartisan note in our debates, even on an Opposition day motion, and I am happy to concur with what a number of Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), have said about the scourge of youth unemployment and that these are things we cannot wait to tackle. I am pleased and proud to speak in favour of one of the key clauses in the motion-the bit that says,
	"urgent action is now required to stop...young people being lost to worklessness".
	I think we can all agree on that but I suspect we might differ on something that I firmly believe-that the change of management in this country in May 2010 was an important first step towards doing that.
	The right hon. Gentleman's Government left one in five young people out of work. The sharp rise in unemployment started in March 2008, but the sad truth is that there was double digit unemployment among young people according to the standard International Labour Organisation measure even in the good years-the years when the Government were borrowing to the hilt and spending money like it was going out of fashion. In an earlier intervention, I presented the right hon. Gentleman with the international comparisons that he declined to comment on in detail, but perhaps he will do so later.
	Of course, Government programmes play a part in all this. I do not think that anyone in the House is suggesting there should be no Government intervention on youth unemployment-of course not. However, I say to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who I am delighted has just returned to the Chamber, that the piece of analysis that he presented concerned entirely the wrong question. We should not ask whether turning around a young person's life is worth £6,500-of course it is. It is worth that and a whole lot more.

Chris Ruane: Well do it then!

Damian Hinds: The hon. Gentleman displays-I shall not go on.
	The important thing to ask is whether that £6,500 is better spent on the fund or on something else that will achieve the same result. It is vital to ask that question at any time, but particularly at a time when the Government and the country not only have no money, but have minus money.
	There are examples of the future jobs fund working well. We have heard about what has been happening in Birmingham and Merseyside and I am sure there are many other examples, but we have to examine whether it was doing its job properly across the piece. I think there were three main problems with the future jobs fund-the future problem, the jobs problem and the fund problem. For the future, it was not sufficiently focused on people's personal development; the jobs involved were not the private sector jobs needed to drive the recovery; and its funding was simply not the most cost-effective way of spending money. Those problems are quite apart from the onerous application procedures, which were partly why so many of the jobs were in the public sector.
	I welcome the new Government's Work programme, which will be more flexible, centred on the individual and, because of the payment by results element, will result in better value for money. As the Prime Minister said a few hours ago in Prime Minister's questions, it has often been asked why we cannot use the money that will be saved in future and spend it on those interventions now. That is exactly what the Work programme does.
	The expansion of apprenticeships is very welcome. Many hon. Members have mentioned that so I shall not say any more on it, but I do want to talk about the new enterprise allowance, which seems to be based on the best features of the Prince's Trust work mentoring scheme, which I know a little about having formerly been a Prince's Trust business mentor. That fantastic programme gives young people who are starting businesses access not only to finance but to support, mentoring and coaching to help see things through. I am delighted that the Government are taking such a programme forward. I hope that we will also see more development of microfinance through community development financial institutions and credit unions once the relevant legislative reform order is brought through.
	Welfare reform is also vital to the whole picture-not just the ambition but the intention and the plan to make sure that work will always pay in future. Programmes are only ever a part of all this, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) mentioned that we need to broaden the debate. The most important thing of all for youth unemployment-indeed, any unemployment-is the state of the economy and our ability as a nation to take advantage of opportunities. We need a healthy physical and, just as importantly, human infrastructure.
	There are three key elements to any overarching programme, which are interrelated. The first is having a buoyant private sector, the second is ensuring that the incentives are there to hire and invest in home-grown workers and the third is ensuring that we have the right skills and capabilities across the economy to take advantage of key growth markets.

Christopher Leslie: In the city of Nottingham at this time last year, youth unemployment fell for five months continuously, but this year it has been rising. The hon. Gentleman talks about growth and how central it is, but does not he have some doubts that his Government are not doing quite enough on the growth strategy? Could he elaborate on that?

Damian Hinds: I do not have such doubts. I cannot comment in detail on Nottingham's figures over the past few years, but as we have been examining in this debate, the problem of youth unemployment has not started in the past few months: it has been with us for a long time and we have a structural issue.
	I was talking about the buoyancy that is needed in the private sector. That starts with investment because when there is investment, businesses grow and take on workers, including young workers. To encourage investment, we need to keep interest rates low. To keep interest rates low, we need a Government who take the nation's finances seriously. We also need to ensure that lending is happening, and I am pleased that the Government are taking a very robust approach with the banks on that. Something that we need to work on more, but which will take some time, is ensuring that British firms are not bogged down in regulation, dead-weight administration and an enormously complicated tax system.
	As well as a buoyant private sector, we need to make sure that we have the right skills to take advantage of the opportunities in the market, both generally and targeted at specific sectors. When we talk about productivity, we tend to focus on manufacturing, but the service sector now accounts for two thirds of the private sector and for much of the productivity gap that we have in relation to other leading nations. Services will continue to be important in future and we need to build up the skills base of our young people-not just their craft skills but their interpersonal and communication skills.
	It is also right to have a targeted approach-a strategy for Great Britain plc. Our record on picking winners is not unblemished, but we do need a strategy. We will never again make T-shirts cheaper than China, but there are sectors in which we can excel. The trick is to find sectors in which there is the coincidence of a high-value, attractive growth market and something that Britain is uniquely well-placed to take advantage of, such as advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, the creative industries, financial services, higher education and tourism.
	Let me say a word on tourism, because my background is in the hospitality, leisure and tourism sector. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] I do not know why people are saying "Ah." That market is in long-term growth and remains a great export opportunity for this country. We are well-placed to take advantage of that market because of our great heritage, our vibrant cities and our beautiful countryside. In that regard, I must say, on a local level, that I am delighted that the South Downs national park will be opening its doors in a few weeks' time.
	When it comes to tourism at Great Britain plc, the marketing department is very good but I am afraid that the human resources department still needs some work.

Tristram Hunt: This is about the future jobs fund.

Damian Hinds: Actually, this is about unemployment and creating a vibrant economy in which people can be employed. If the hon. Gentleman reads every clause of the motion, he will discover that I am correct.
	In the hospitality sector we find that at entry level, kids who have grown up in this country do not have the same skill sets as some of their rivals from other countries. It is not just about being able to make the best eggs benedict: it is about having the interpersonal skills I was talking about-greeting the customer, making eye contact, smiling, offering to help and owning the problem of the customer. Those are the sorts of skills that we need to build up. It is because of some of those gaps that some employers, sadly, actively prefer to take on young people who have not been educated in this country. That is a huge shame.
	I am running out of time. I hugely welcome the Work programme, the enterprise allowance and the expansion in apprenticeships. I equally welcome the review of vocational education and training and the fresh look we are taking at the national curriculum and our commitment to improving education and benchmarking it against the very best in the world. I also welcome the fact that the Government are getting a grip on immigration, which is related to this, and the radical welfare reform. Most of all, I welcome the fact that the Government are living up to their responsibilities to eliminate the structural deficit, to keep interest rates low, to get businesses investing and to grow the economy and create jobs.

Tristram Hunt: This is a very important debate, and it is a shame to see the Government Benches so empty, not least because the number of unemployment claimants in Stoke-on-Trent Central was more than 250 higher in January 2011 than in December 2010. The good work done by the Labour Government in stopping unemployment, preventing youth unemployment and preventing the worst of the recession is being steadily undone. That was the Labour vision-helping the least well-off through the toughest times. Now we face the morass of a noblesse oblige, laissez-faire big society model that will do little for my constituents.
	Part of the Labour approach was the future jobs fund, which secured training and work for young people and slashed long-term ingrained unemployment. Many of my colleagues have spoken very effectively of how well the scheme has worked in their constituencies, and I can say the same of my constituency and the broader north Staffordshire area. The north Staffordshire future jobs fund put hundreds of people into work across Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands.
	A good example was to be found at Epic Housing, a housing association in Bentilee in my constituency, a tough part of Stoke-on-Trent with ingrained problems of worklessness. Epic looks after 900 homes in the Bentilee area and put 26 people through the scheme, 10 of whom now have permanent jobs-six with Bentilee Environmental Services and Training and four with the parent firm, Epic. Malcolm Burdon, the social enterprise team leader-something that I believe the Government are in favour of-said:
	"In six months, the lads go from sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle to getting up in the morning and coming into work. It makes them disciplined."
	I have nothing against Jeremy Kyle personally, but I am in favour of work and the discipline and pride that come with it, which I used to think the Conservative party believed in.
	The future jobs fund has worked not just in Bentilee but in Abbey Green, and it has attacked a culture of worklessness in some tough communities in the city. It is important for my city because Stoke-on-Trent is now on an economic journey, which the Labour Government were helping. It lost its traditional industries, the pits and the pots. Mrs Thatcher did for the mining industry, globalisation did for the steel industry and mechanisation put tens of thousands out of work in the ceramics trade. We are now on a journey of retraining, reskilling, education and attacking worklessness. The collapse of those industries ingrained a culture of worklessness in many communities. People still had the idea that they could go to work in those traditional sectors without needing education and training, and when those jobs went, so too did a culture of workfulness. That filtered down the generations and there was a problem with getting people to work.
	The current generation cannot go into the jobs of their fathers and forefathers. As the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, we cannot make T-shirts cheaper than China, nor can we make ceramics cheaper than China in many instances, or steel. We therefore need to train people and give them skills, but we also need to get them back into a culture of work, and that was partly what the future jobs fund was about. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) explained very well how the fund got into communities and got people back into the culture that they needed.
	The real problem with the attack on the future jobs fund is that it forms part of a triple whammy attack by the Government on young people. We had the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance, which had allowed many people to make the transition to education and learning, which is very important in a city such as mine. We then had the rank stupidity of the teaching budget for universities being slashed by 80%, thereby imposing a £9,000 charge on tuition fees. We should not think for a minute that not all the good universities in the UK will seek to charge £9,000. That leaves many of us wondering what on earth the Government have against young people.
	When those moves are combined with an economic policy of cutting too far and too fast, we see that the Government do not have a policy for growth. They have a policy that looks after the banks and supermarkets but slashes business investment.

Edward Timpson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tristram Hunt: I would be delighted to give way to a fellow north Staffordshire Member.

Edward Timpson: Cheshire, actually, but I know we are fairly close to each other. You'll get to know the geography fairly soon.
	Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to enlighten us on his party's policy for growth?

Tristram Hunt: My party's policy for growth is to rebalance the British economy, and to invest in industry, manufacturing and engineering, which are vital to the north Staffordshire economy. This Government give corporation tax cuts to the banks and the supermarkets, and end initiatives that help investment in science, manufacturing and engineering.
	Welfare bills and jobseeker's allowance accounts are being added to by the undermining of the economic recovery and the scrapping of the future jobs fund, which itself imperils the Government's hopes of paying down the deficit. The argument about the extraneous cost of the future jobs fund is economic nonsense. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned the great success of the scheme. Government Members like to pray my right hon. Friend in aid at every single opportunity, but on that point they would do well to listen to him.
	Many of my colleagues wish to explain the success of the future jobs fund in their constituencies, but it would be unfair to leave my speech without a good old-fashioned example of Liberal Democrat hypocrisy. In a letter dated 21 April 2010, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), wrote:
	"We have no plans to change or reduce existing commitments to the Future Jobs Fund. We believe that more help is needed for young people, not less."
	We now know how far those commitments go.
	Liberal Democrats say that they did not know what the books looked like or what the conditions were, but the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills spent his life writing about the storm and the catastrophe and the crash and all the rest of it, so the situation was not exactly unacknowledged. That talk was either over-egging or dissimulation.
	The youth unemployment crisis and the future jobs fund policy points to three things: first, a series of broken promises, denials and U-turns by this shoddy Tory-led Government; secondly, the fact that they have no policy for growth or job creation, eggs Benedict and all; and thirdly, the perils of the Government's vision of the big society. Labour believes in civil society working with the state, but the Government believe in the withdrawal of the state, which will have terrible results in the communities that we represent.

Marcus Jones: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on youth unemployment. As I am sure all hon. Members know, youth unemployment is a huge problem that needs to be tackled. We should try to avoid playing politics on such an issue, but, sadly, the motion serves to make a party political point.
	The future jobs fund is currently part of the policy, but the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) seems to think that it is the be-all and end-all, and a utopian solution to the problem of youth unemployment. He does not take into account the fact that it is part of an overall policy to tackle the huge problem of getting our young people into the labour market on a sustainable footing-I emphasise the word "sustainable".
	In proposing the motion, the Labour party is creating a smokescreen-it is a red herring-to disguise the many years of failure to tackle youth unemployment. One in five young people are out of work, nearly 1 million are unemployed, and 600,000 who left education under the previous Government are yet to find work. That record of abject failure and that legacy leave little room for the Labour party to lecture the Government who are trying to sort those problems out, having taken on the worst public finances in living memory.
	The future jobs fund was, I am sure, beneficial to some young people, but was it cost-effective and sustainable? Did it lead to permanent and sustainable employment for our young people? The evidence tells us that it did not.

Anne Begg: As an employer, would the hon. Gentleman employ the person with two weeks' work experience on their CV or the person with six months' of work?

Marcus Jones: It is incumbent on the Government to offer not short-term help but long-term sustainable help for young people. It is important for this Government to make sure that we create a culture in which our young people are ready for work, not force them into short-term work to try to prove themselves to employers. Our youngsters must be ready for work.
	The evidence tells us that the future jobs fund was twice as expensive as an apprenticeship. In some places, particularly Birmingham, only 3% of jobs were in the private sector and in most instances very few permanent jobs were created. Most young people, however, are looking for permanent jobs. A grandmother who came to my surgery a few weeks ago wanted her grandson to have a sustainable, long-term future.
	I would also like to explore the job market and the culture behind it, which is very important. Throughout Government policy, we must promote the idea of getting our young people into employment and it must be a priority across Departments to reduce the barriers that prevent young people from getting work and take down the barriers that prevent employers from taking young people on, because such barriers do exist.
	We also need to look at aspiration, which is acknowledged, particularly by head teachers, as a problem in my constituency. On a number of recent visits to schools, I was told that many of their young people have two aspirations: one is to become a footballer and the other is to become a pop star. My lifelong knowledge of my constituency tells me that during my lifetime we have probably bred three or four people who have become professional footballers and made a living from the sport.

Chris Ruane: Name them!

Marcus Jones: John Curtis, Peter Whittingham, Darren Gradsby, Julian Alsop-there's four. They have all done well at varying levels at the professional game. I can tell the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that I cannot name anyone who has made it as a pop star. That is why I said that we need young people to have reasonable and achievable aspiration at all levels, which does not seem to be the case at the moment. We have to be honest and recognise that people have different abilities and different levels. That is the case in this House and in the country as a whole.
	We must ensure that those who can become doctors and those who go into the trades are valued. We must ensure that the work of young people on the checkout or stacking shelves at Tesco is also valued. We must show those young people that they can make it by working from right at the bottom up towards the top. One good example of that is Terry Leahy who went from stacking shelves at Tesco to become its chief executive; he has been very successful in the business world. We need to show young people that it is worth starting at the bottom of the ladder and working their way up, which can often be a fulfilling experience.
	We need to ensure that employers have the right culture, particularly for apprentices. As part of national apprenticeship week, I last week visited a fine small business called MES Systems in my constituency. It employs two young apprentices who are doing fantastic work; they are both excellent and well rounded young men. They were hindered, however, because the culture makes it difficult for employers to give our young people the necessary leg-up to get out and do things on their own. This company employed two youngsters, as I say, one of whom was perfectly able to fit and maintain alarm systems under his own steam. Unfortunately, however, he still had to go around with an engineer and could not go out on his own in his van, as the company could not get access to insurance for him because he was too young. That is the sort of barrier that holds companies back. From what the company told me, I have no doubt that it could take on more young people if it had access to that type of facility.
	On the Work programme, I welcome the policies put forward by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). The integrated package of support will replace an unclear, confused system that lacks accountability. We will reduce the bureaucratic burden of the current system, and make it simpler for young people and employers to understand, increasing the number of young people who get into work. It is important that we do not have a one-size-fits-all policy for such young people. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and others have mentioned, things are not as they used to be: sons do not follow their fathers down the pit, or into the car factories as used to be the case in Coventry- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) comments from a sedentary position, but in my area, which was heavily dependent on manufacturing, thousands of jobs at some of the biggest manufacturing names in this country were lost on his Government's watch, so they do not have such a proud record on that.
	I reject the assertion in the motion about the future jobs fund, given the gravity of the problems faced by the Government in tackling youth unemployment. Members must work hard and take responsibility, across the House, to sort out the problem. I hope the Minister will elaborate on how that work will be taken forward.

Julie Hilling: I want to speak about the support needs of unemployed young people.
	In the 1980s and '90s, I spent 10 years as a youth worker in a youth co-operative project for unemployed young people. At that time, more than a quarter of young people were unemployed. There was a generation of young people with no jobs, no hope and no future. Some of those young people never recovered: some committed suicide; some turned to drugs and alcohol; others ended up with long-term mental health problems. Even when the economy started to recover, those young people who had spent many years unemployed found it incredibly difficult to get a job. Let us be honest: would an employer prefer to take a 16-year-old fresh out of school, or a 26-year-old who had spent most of the previous 10 years out of work with nothing to get up for and nothing to do? The youth co-operative tried to stop the cycle of despair for unemployed young people, helped them to gain skills and set up their own businesses, gave them driving lessons and taught them how to use computers, built their confidence and gave them a reason to get out of bed. Then we were closed by Tory cuts to the youth service.
	The Labour Government came along and introduced the Connexions service-careers advice plus. It provided straightforward careers advice for young people and a dedicated service of support for young people not in employment, education or training or those at risk of becoming NEET. The Government funded other programmes that provided support, training and education to young people, including a summer programme for 16-year-olds from the New Opportunities Fund. There was an activity agreement, a learning agreement, and from the working neighbourhoods fund a range of projects, including bespoke projects aimed at the most vulnerable young people, such as teenage parents and young offenders.
	What happened as a result of that support and such programmes? From 1997 to the start of the global financial crisis, youth unemployment fell by 40%, and more than half of young people were off jobseeker's allowance within three months. Now we have a Tory-led Government, and it is back to the future. All the support programmes are being slashed, the Connexions service, future jobs fund and EMA are going, youth services are on the brink of destruction, and youth unemployment is at its highest since 1992. What are young people, especially those who need additional support because of poverty, disability or low educational attainment, to do? How will such young people compete with those who have more advantage?
	The Government have also cut completely the funding to v, the national young volunteers service, and vinvolved provided fun, exciting, eye-opening volunteer experiences for young people, and one-to-one, tailored, maintained support. Most of the young people engaged in the project were experiencing difficult social and economic circumstances. Volunteering enhances young people's employability, gives them the opportunity to gain experience to put on their CVs, and allows them to get references and develop contacts to help them to get into full-time work. It also enables them to give back to their communities and, perhaps most importantly of all, gives them confidence and self-respect. The Government's replacement for it is merely an eight-week summer programme for 16-year-olds.
	On Sunday I had the honour of presenting the volunteer of the year award for Greater Manchester to Matthew, a 21-year-old from Bolton. Matthew has multiple disabilities, had no confidence and was doing nothing. His Connexions adviser referred him to get involved in vinvolved. He was offered a number of volunteering opportunities, which he took up. When his support worker visited him a few weeks later, she did not recognise him. He has continued to volunteer and is now training as a coach for disabled football. Matthew is on the road to getting a full-time job. He would not be if it were not for vinvolved.
	Most young people from advantaged backgrounds will achieve the transition to work easily, but those from difficult backgrounds often find it less simple. Youth unemployment cannot be solved overnight. Therefore we must provide support, not only in jobs but in positive activity and action so that our current generation of young people will survive, have hope and have a future.

Gregg McClymont: Scrapping the future jobs fund is a false economy for this country, because in saving a relatively modest sum in the short term the Government are recklessly running up much greater costs for society in the long term. Those greater costs will come from poor mental and physical health, to which persistent worklessness is linked, and which will have a long-term impact on the NHS and other social services. There will also be greater costs for the economy. A whole generation of people will be unskilled and unequipped for work. That will be a much greater cost for the economy because if we do not provide these young people with the right skills and experience during the downturn, we will lack the human capital to take advantage of the recovery down the line.
	The future jobs fund was a serious response to the crisis of joblessness. At its heart was the guarantee of paid work for those who have been unemployed for more than six months. Underpinning it was the economic rationale that investment in jobs now would prevent a repeat of the lost generation of the 1980s. I was amused earlier today to hear the Prime Minister describe the Work programme as the biggest back-to-work programme since the 1930s. That is not much of an achievement, because there were no back-to-work programmes worth the name in the 1930s.
	The analogy with the 1930s does hold in the following respect however. In the 1930s we had a Tory-led coalition presiding over mass unemployment. The unemployed were concentrated in the same areas that face the biggest challenges in creating jobs now. When the unemployed marched to London from Jarrow and elsewhere, the Government told them, "Sorry, but we can't help you as the financial markets won't wear it." Does that sound familiar?
	The FJF was a creative response to a crisis of youth joblessness. Its abolition is to be regretted for a number of reasons. It is a tragedy for young people in my constituency, which has 13 people chasing every vacancy according to the most recent figures, and it is a tragedy for the country. Unless we invest now in these young people, we will not be able to reap the benefits of the recovery which will flow at some stage down the line. Investment is necessary now. Not investing in these young people is a false economy.

Alison McGovern: I will be very brief, because many Members on both sides of the House have contributed to the debate and have made excellent points.
	Young people are always the victim of recessions; they are always the least able to cope. That is true around the world now: in both wealthy nations and developing countries, young people are the victims of the recent global economic crash. It was true in 1992 as well, which was a recession I remember only too well.
	We live in a changing world. It is no longer possible to be like my dad and fail at education but succeed in the world of work. We have a different economy, where skills are necessary not just for well-paid jobs but for all jobs. That will continue in the future; our place in the global market has changed and we must recognise what that means for young people.
	The existing culture of worklessness that other Members have mentioned and which my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), has done so much to research and question, arose from the failure in the 1980s to plan for change. Because we failed to plan then for better employment, we have an entrenched culture of worklessness. I hope that Ministers in this Government will not make the same mistake. I have certainly seen their commitment and I hope they will build on it by changing course.
	To make sure that young people, especially those on Merseyside and those I represent in Wirral, do not pay the price of the crash, the Government should slow down the cuts, and invest to save. We shall not fix the deficit by forcing young people to remain on the dole. The Government must rethink their plans for work experience schemes that bear too many of the hallmarks of the short-termism of YTS in favour of real jobs in the voluntary and social sector. We can support that sector, which means so much to us, by investing in such jobs, as the future jobs fund was doing. That is the lesson the Government need to learn. It is not by pandering to hard-line calls for cuts that we shall fix the deficit, but by investing in young people for the future.

Stephen Timms: We have had a good debate. From both sides of the House we have heard mounting alarm about the youth unemployment crisis that is battering every community in the land, not least, as we heard, those in Thurrock, Cardiff Central, Enfield North, East Hampshire and Nuneaton. We learned today that the number of unemployed young people has risen again and is perilously close to 1 million. The rate of unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds, which came down in response to Government initiatives from the summer of 2009, rose sharply at the end of last year to the highest rate ever recorded. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) is right to underline the fact that the rate of unemployed new graduates is 20%. Not only is employment falling; young people are being deterred from education. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) was right; for young people, this is a perfect storm.
	The Government should heed the warning, for example from Brendan Barber, that there
	"is a real danger of losing another generation of young people".
	That warning is coming not just from Labour and the trade unions. David Blanchflower, professor of economics at Dartford college, New Hampshire, formerly of the Monetary Policy Committee puts it thus:
	"Our labour market problem is primarily a youth problem...The data shows that the coalition has sent the youth labour market back into crisis."
	Ministers should certainly listen to the Recruitment and Employment Confederation. In the foreword to its report, "Avoiding a lost generation", the chief executive wrote:
	"These young people risk becoming a 'lost generation' unless action is taken by all those with a role to play."
	The REC calls for a series of specific measures from Government and others. The message is consistent. The Government need to act, but action from this Government is what we are missing.
	What about the prospects for the coming months? We are at the start of a massive cull of public sector jobs. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that more than 400,000 of them will be lost over five years. Others say it will be worse. The OBR told us that in the current financial year 5,000 jobs would be lost, but the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said the figure would be nearer 50,000-10 times as many. We see from figures published this morning that the CIPD was right: 60,000 public sector jobs lost in six months.
	What about the coming year? The OBR says that 40,000 jobs will go, but the Conservative-led Local Government Association says that local authorities alone will shed more than 100,000 jobs next year. The OBR seems to have failed to grasp the magnitude of what is going to happen.
	There is no sign at all of the boom in private sector jobs that the Government promised to take up the slack. The Office for National Statistics spelled it out this morning. Growth in private sector jobs in the past quarter was nil. Nothing. Zero. With the Government, as Richard Lambert pointed out, having no growth strategy, we will not see a private sector job resurgence any time soon.
	We wish the Work programme well, but if there is no work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said, it is not going to work. Now, in an extraordinary about-turn on the promises that Ministers have made about the Work programme, it turns out that it will help far fewer people than the programme that it is replacing. The scorecard published today by the think tank Reform sums up the position. For the Department, the DWP, it is a case of
	"promising too much and delivering too little".
	The Government have scrapped the future jobs fund, which has been the focus of the debate. People in Jobcentre Plus echo what we have heard in the debate. Those in my area say that FJF was clearly a success, with up to half of those who were placed in jobs being kept on by their employers after their six-month placement ended, with still others going on to other jobs with the benefit of great experience on their CV. We heard from several Members in the debate about the achievements of the fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) mentioned people placed with Age Concern Wirral supporting voluntary sector capacity building.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) was right to underline the importance of volunteering as a route back into work. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) paid tribute to Ali Thomas and her work at Rhyl city strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) spoke about 200 young people whom, it was hoped, would be in work by the end of March. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) about 26 people being placed in work through Epic housing association. There is a raft of achievements around the country, brightening the prospects of young people for the future.
	The problem of youth unemployment is particularly serious at present because there is such a large cohort of young people. The size of that cohort will decrease over the next few years, so there is a strong case for the future jobs fund or something very like it, at least in the next few years. The Minister may not need to announce a long-term initiative, but she needs to grasp the scale of the problem in the short term and come up with proposals to tackle it.
	It was the Churches report, "Unemployment and the Future of Work", that made the case 14 years ago that it was wrong in as prosperous a society as ours for large numbers of people to be deprived for long periods of the chance to earn a living. More than 250,000 of the young people currently out of work have been unemployed for more than a year. As we saw in the 1980s and in the early 1990s, long-term youth unemployment does untold long-term damage. We cannot afford the Government doing what those previous Governments did-abandoning yet another generation of young people. Young people do not need warm words or sympathy. They need action, and the time for action is now.

Maria Miller: I thank Opposition Members for giving us the chance today to debate the record of the previous Labour Government. It has been a lively debate, which is perhaps unsurprising, given that the record of Labour is so fresh and bears the fingerprints of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who opened the debate for the Opposition. I shall deal first with his contribution, which was a master-class in the selective use of statistics.
	Let me clear up one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's statements. He asserted that redundancies are going up. In fact, redundancies are unchanged in the past quarter, at 145,000-less than half the level during the recession-and the number of people on JSA is 20,000 lower than at the election. The number of unfilled vacancies has risen by 40,000 this quarter to 500,000-the sorts of new jobs that can make a real difference in people's lives.
	The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) called for action, and that is what we as a coalition Government are delivering. The Government are determined to make a difference to the lives of young people, which means tackling the root causes of unemployment, not just dealing with the symptoms. That is why we are supporting a host of new measures, including work clubs, Work Together, enterprise clubs and the new enterprise allowance, to help unemployed people move off benefits and into self-employment.
	We are getting the Prince's Trust into jobcentres so that we can help build volunteering partnerships. That is why, for young people in particular, we are developing a far more flexible back-to-work model that gives Jobcentre Plus managers the freedom to work with them and help them get the support that in the past has been lacking. We are also launching a new work experience programme to get young people into the habits of work, with two to eight-week placements targeting hard-to-help groups. We are putting 18 to 24-year-olds who have not succeeded in finding a job after nine months into the Work programme, with early entry for the most disadvantaged.
	We have heard a host of contributions today and I would like to pick up on one or two of the themes that have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) made an important contribution when he said that jobs play a pivotal role in our lives, and I wholeheartedly agree. He will therefore be as angry as we on this side of the House are that youth unemployment grew by 270,000 under Labour's stewardship. I hope he can support the programmes that the Government have put forward to address the issues.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister give way?

Maria Miller: I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, because we are very short of time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) talked about the importance of employability, which did not always come through in Opposition Members' contributions. She outlined the importance of recognising the need to localise support for young people and, in particular, to involve local employers in imaginative thinking to try to unlock the potential of our youth. That theme was echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), both of whom bring important experience to the debate as employers. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North talked about the importance of permanent and sustainable jobs and about Labour's failure to deliver a long-term, sustainable strategy for youth unemployment. By focusing on that broader element of the debate, he brought in the perspective of the employer.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire talked about the productivity gap that we see all too often in the market, a skills gap that the previous Government simply did not address, and the importance of education in ensuring that young people are skilled up for the future job market. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) made an important point in the debate, as did Opposition Members later, about the importance of ensuring that the most vulnerable get the support they need to get into employment. I can assure her that, through my work as the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, and by pressing forward with Work Choice, we will ensure that the Work programme is supplemented by particularly specialist support in that area.
	The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who is no longer in her place, made some important points on apprenticeships. Indeed, I think she said that she would have liked her party to have gone further on apprenticeships. I can assure her that where Labour did not go, we will go. I hope that she will support us in that.

Albert Owen: Will the Minister give way?

Maria Miller: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, because we have a lot to get through.
	It is important to use apprenticeships in the public sector to transfer skills into the private sector. At the heart of the debate-this is the point that Labour Members were trying to bring out-is the role of the future jobs fund. We heard an impassioned speech from the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who made sure that the House listened to his contribution, but I must set one or two of his facts straight. He asserted many points in his contribution, some of which have already been refuted by colleagues. Just to make sure that he is clear, the coalition Government did not abolish the future jobs fund; 75,000 people have started on a future jobs fund job, and that figure will rise to more than 100,000 in the coming weeks. We have honoured all future jobs fund commitments. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman: we will make sure that young people in his constituency continue to receive the support to which he referred.
	The hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) and for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) raised a number of issues, particularly on the importance of inter-generational worklessness-something that Government Members feel was not tackled properly under 13 years of Labour. On the importance of re-establishing the culture of work, I am sure that their constituents would not support a scheme-the future jobs fund-that leaves half the young people whom it was designed to support on benefits seven months after they started on it. That is not the sort of success that anybody would like to see for young people today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) could not have put it better: it feels today as if Labour has been trying to create a smokescreen to hide its true record of failure. Today, we have heard again about Labour's legacy of failure: a failure to tackle the root causes of youth unemployment, with the number of people in youth unemployment when they left office 270,000 higher than when they entered, and a legacy that they tried to fix with a catalogue of short-termist schemes that seemed to owe more to managing unemployment figures and creating headlines than to trying to provide for the long-term futures of the young people whom we represent.
	Let us be clear: the future jobs fund has not delivered, and it does not deliver the long-term opportunities that we, as constituency Members, want. The undeniable fact is that about half of those who went into the future jobs fund were back in the unemployment queues seven months later. The right hon. Member for East Ham called for action, and that is exactly what the coalition Government are delivering. In contrast to Labour, we are focusing on long-term skills.

Sheila Gilmore: Is it not the case that youth unemployment fell below 700,000 only at the very end of the period 1992 to 1997? It did not rise above 700,000 again until 2007, when the recession came. So, if we are comparing records, will the hon. Lady please get the record straight?

Maria Miller: I will absolutely get the record straight for the hon. Lady. It is very simple. She may give the House a lot of stats, but I will give one stat back to her: 270,000 more young people on unemployment benefits at the end of Labour's 13 years in government than at the start. That is the fact that matters.
	In contrast-

Chris Ruane: Will the Minister give way?

Maria Miller: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, because I have two minutes in which to finish.
	In contrast, we are focusing on long-term skills and sustainable jobs for young people-a real future for the people whom we represent. There will be 50,000 extra apprenticeships this year, at about half the cost of future jobs fund placements, and we will deliver skills that will last a lifetime. The Work programme will provide personalised support that has never been seen before in this country-caring for the individual and caring for individual needs.
	There will be work experience opportunities for young people and voluntary opportunities that make the difference, with people getting that first step on the employment ladder and that first job. There will also be a new universal credit that supports young people into work and does not trap them in a lifetime of welfare dependency and underachievement.
	Labour spent £4 billion on its new deal projects, much of which was aimed at young people, but we saw unemployment among young people going up. That is a national disgrace. The real change is happening right now. We are not wasting any time. We are giving the young people of Britain the support that they need to reach their potential and to get the experience and training that they need for long-term job opportunities. We are going to set people up for life with the skills that they need.
	This is not the time to turn back to Labour's failed policies of the past 13 years. I urge hon. Members across the House to reject the Opposition motion and to support a more positive future for Britain.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 317.

Question accordingly negatived.

Nigel Evans: I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from a previous day. On the Question relating to immigration, the Ayes were 474 and the Noes were 23, so the Ayes have it.
	On the Question relating to the terrorist finance tracking programme, the Ayes were 484 and the Noes were 5, so the Ayes have it.
	 [The Division lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Military Covenant

Nigel Evans: Before I call the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) to move the motion, I should emphasise that a large number of Members wish to speak in this debate, which is why a six-minute limit has been put on Back-Bench speeches. May I also ask for restraint from Front Benchers, so as to enable as many Back Benchers to speak as possible?

Jim Murphy: I beg to move,
	That this House supports establishing in law the definition of the Military Covenant, in so doing fulfilling the Prime Minister's pledge of 25 June 2010 to have 'a new Military Covenant that's written into the law of the land'; believes that this commitment should not be diluted or sidestepped; and further supports service charities' and families' calls for a legally-binding Military Covenant which defines the principles that should guide Government action on all aspects of defence policy.
	I start by adding my condolences to those properly offered by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition earlier today to the families of Private Lewis Hendry from 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, Private Conrad Lewis from 4th Battalion the Parachute Regiment and Lance Corporal Kyle Marshall from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. They will be loved for ever by their families, and I hope that they will be permanently honoured by our nation.
	The motion before us has a straightforward purpose. It aims to fulfil the Conservative party's pledge to introduce a new military covenant that is written into the law of the land. It will properly fulfil the Conservatives' manifesto pledge to establish a tri-service military covenant. It aims to address the concerns articulated by the Royal British Legion and other service charities, and to set out in law the definition of the covenant so that there can be a legal basis for the principles that the Government must uphold in order to provide the forces community with the highest level of care and support. Inexplicably, the Government have already voted against an amendment in the Armed Forces Bill Committee that would have fulfilled the aims of today's motion.

Bob Russell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the points that he is about to raise were debated in detail in that Committee, and that clause 2 of the Bill bears the words "armed forces covenant"?

Jim Murphy: The clause contains the words "armed forces covenant report". The hon. Gentleman discussed these points in Committee, and I will expand on them a little later.

James Gray: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving give way, because I am keen to interrupt him at the beginning of his interesting speech. We are grateful for his support for our proposal to bring the military covenant into law. If he casts his mind back over the past 13 years, can he remember any occasion on which Labour either put a proposal to do that in its manifesto or committed itself in any way, shape or form to putting any kind of military covenant into law?

Jim Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his keen sense of anticipation for my interesting speech. I have already said that, on reflection, we should have gone further towards taking the covenant out of the cut and thrust of party politics-[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] I hope that all those on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches who are now chiding us for not having done that will have the courage of their convictions and take this opportunity to vote for their manifesto commitment later this evening.
	Many Members, of all parties, and most people in the country will be hoping that the Secretary of State will use today's debate as an opportunity to reconsider the Government's policy. This debate is important because the covenant is the unspoken contract between the nation and our services that guides us to serve with the utmost respect those who serve our country with incomparable courage. As our country continues to change, those values should remain constant. There is a tangible feeling up and down the country that that moral bond between the nation and the forces should be strengthened.
	I want to make it clear from the outset that any criticism that I offer today is not mine alone. The Army Families Federation received 2,000 complaints about the Government's cuts from its members by e-mail in five days, many of which expressed real concern. The director general of the Royal British Legion, Chris Simpkins, has said of the Government's defence of their Armed Forces Bill:
	"The Legion is concerned that this looks like the beginnings of a Government U-turn."
	In truth, if the Government fail to back today's motion, that U-turn will be complete. Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore, the chairman of the Forces Pension Society, has described the Government's plan for the covenant as "incredibly wet and feeble", stating:
	"It is flute music and arm waving. There is nothing of any substance, with just a couple of no-cost ideas".

Andrew Bridgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Murphy: Bearing your stricture in mind again, Mr Deputy Speaker, of course I will.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that for almost three years the last Labour Government were in complete denial about the adequacy of Snatch Land Rovers to protect our troops in Helmand? Does that not constitute a breach of the military covenant?

Jim Murphy: We massively increased the number of armoured vehicles going to Afghanistan, and that was the right thing to do.
	The former commander of the Parachute Regiment in Afghanistan, Colonel Stuart Tootal, said at the weekend:
	"There is a real fragility of morale in the Armed Forces at the moment."
	It is regrettable that a Government so young should find themselves in a position so undesirable. That is of concern to Members in all parts of the House. These are real issues, which demand a more serious response than Ministers have given in the past few days and weeks.

Dan Byles: Would that be the same Colonel Stuart Tootal who resigned his position as commanding officer of the Paras in disgust at the way in which his soldiers had been treated under the Labour Government?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that not to be the case. Stuart Tootal made his position very clear at the weekend.
	I do not doubt the sincerity of Ministers' words. I have made that plain at each and every turn when I have spoken from the Dispatch Box. However, there is real confusion and concern about their actions. The reason for the growing anger is that they know that the Government's actions are sometimes enormously unfair, and, in the case of defining the covenant in law, utterly confused.
	Let me explain why I think that the Government's position is flawed. In the Armed Forces Bill, the Government have provided for an annual report on the covenant, explicitly using the term "covenant". However, Ministers are choosing to overlook the fact that there is no legally binding definition of the term to accompany its use, which means that Ministers can themselves determine how it is interpreted.

Stephen Barclay: In his evidence to the Public Accounts Committee last month, the most senior official in the Treasury, Sir Nick Macpherson, said that
	"there was a point in the middle of the last decade where the MOD lost control of public spending."
	Can the Minister explain what impact that has had on the military covenant?

Jim Murphy: At the same time the hon. Gentleman's party was demanding more spending on the Army, more spending on the Navy, more spending on the Royal Air Force, more aeroplanes and more ships. When there was real concern about funding, his party was demanding ever more spending. He cannot be in denial about that.
	I would rather rely on the evidence of one of the hon. Gentleman's own Ministers in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill. He was very clear, and the Secretary of State must be clear as well in terms of meaningful commitment. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), the veterans Minister, said that the Government had no intention of placing in law a legal definition of a covenant.

Angus Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sense of responsibility enshrined in a military covenant must also reflect care for service communities that are threatened with base closures? Does he agree that lessons could be learned from the United States, where there is a "transparent" commission which considers base realignment and closure, and an Office of Economic Adjustment, which gives substantial funds and support to closure-hit communities?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows, as I think everyone in Scotland knows, that we do not agree on everything when it comes to the armed forces, but he makes an important point about the impact on wider societies and communities of any base closures. During the last two years or so of the Labour Government, we considered the future of the firing range in the Western Isles, and it was not until we had received a full impact assessment of the impact on the community and the fragile economy of the islands that it was decided to halt the closure.
	In Committee, the veterans Minister said:
	"The covenant is a conceptual thing that will not be laid down in law." --[ Official Report, Armed Forces Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2011; c. 21.]
	The whole country will be simultaneously grateful to the Minister and disappointed that he has made the Government's position clear. It seems that the Government's main line of defence is to attack a non-existent threat. No one is arguing for a set of justiciable rights. No one really wants to campaign for such a thing.
	The forces charities themselves said that they wanted the principles defined in law-they did not want new statutory rights-and that is what our motion sets out to achieve. In answer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) in the Select Committee that considered the Bill, the Royal British Legion's director general said:
	"I understand the point about rigidity, specific definition and a detailed Covenant being included in law. I am not making that point at all. What I am saying is that the principles of which a Covenant should take account should be clearly stated and understood."

Pat McFadden: The Prime Minister's pledge was not made before the election in the heat of a campaign, but after it. In June last year, he said that the Government would have
	"a new Military Covenant that's written into the law of the land".
	Given the clarity of that pledge, will my right hon. Friend care to speculate as to why the Government would not fulfil that commitment?

Jim Murphy: That is probably going to be the hardest question I am asked all day. Just why have the Government U-turned on this issue, given that it was not a pre-election promise, but a post-election commitment? It is for the Secretary of State and his Ministers to articulate the reasons for their Government's action.
	I come back to the point about principle rather than statutory obligations.

Stephen Barclay: rose-

Alec Shelbrooke: rose-

Charlie Elphicke: rose-

Jim Murphy: I have a choice. I have already given way to the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke).

Alec Shelbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about what happened in the past. Will he take the opportunity to apologise on behalf of the previous Government for sending our troops to war without the correct equipment in 2003 because he did not want to alarm his own Back Benchers that his Government may have already decided to go to war in Iraq?

Jim Murphy: The fact is that I am remarkably proud of much of what my Government did in office in support of the armed forces: we produced the service personnel Command Paper and the first ever cross-government strategy; we made improvements for dependants waiting on NHS waiting lists; we provided support for and investment in the NHS; we ensured better treatment in the allocation of public housing; and basic pay went up in line with recommendations of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body in full for 11 years in a row. That is a remarkable set of investments, of which I am rightly proud.

Charlie Elphicke: rose-

Jim Murphy: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I do hope that he will at least seek to make the argument against our motion.

Charlie Elphicke: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's desire to take a Maoist year zero approach to all this. Leaving aside the obvious exercise in shamelessness, he nevertheless left a £38 billion black hole in the MOD, which has made it much harder to look after our troops in the future.

Jim Murphy: I know that for the hon. Gentleman's party it is always someone else's fault. The sacking of soldiers by e-mail was the Army's fault, then it was the civil servants' fault and by the end of the day it was the Labour Government's fault.

Stephen Barclay: rose -

Jim Murphy: I give way again, but I hope that at least one Conservative Member will say whether they are going to vote to detail the principles involved in a definition of the military covenant.

Stephen Barclay: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that Conservative Members were pointing the finger elsewhere. Does he not agree with his parliamentary colleague, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, agreed with the following finding:
	"The Department has failed to develop a financial strategy identifying core spending priorities"?
	The report in question also said:
	"The Department's poor financial management has led to a...shortfall of...£36 billion".
	Does he agree with his parliamentary colleague? Why was the military covenant not part of his Government's core spending priorities?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is confused. The fact is that his party was demanding ever more spending on the armed forces in the midst of the recession and the financial crisis.

Alec Shelbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Murphy: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman so I shall make some progress.
	On the military covenant, the amendment to the Armed Forces Bill that the Secretary of State and his friends were intent on rejecting said:
	"The Secretary of State must by Order through Statutory Instrument establish a written Military Covenant (henceforth referred to as "the Covenant") which sets out the definition of the word "covenant", used in Clause 2, line 6 of the Armed Forces Bill. The definition would set out the principles against which the annual armed forces covenant report would be judged."
	That is the amendment that the Government have found so dangerous and refused to accept in Committee. That is the amendment that they claim would create a whole set of new justiciable rights when it would do no such thing.

Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the deficit that the Government now blame us for was accumulated over nearly 30 years, so they are as responsible for it as anyone? Does he agree that they should not have signed up to a covenant that they never intended to carry out?

Jim Murphy: The fact is that prior to the financial collapse across the world and the banking crisis, we had pared down the debt. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] There is no point in that crowd on the Government Front Bench moaning about this: throughout that period they demanded ever more spending on our armed forces. They cannot deny that.
	Returning to the military covenant-

Julian Brazier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Murphy: In a second. So far, we have not had a single intervention from a Conservative Member who has said whether they are willing to back their own manifesto commitment. I do not mean that as a negative comment on the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) because I know he takes a keen interest in all these matters. I will happily give way to him.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. He knows that I have raised with Governments of different complexions issues from the treatment of the wounded to the state of married quarters. In my 24 years here, representing a garrison city, I have never once had a serviceman or service family come to me and say, "This is all about producing a legal definition of the military covenant." What they want is to be treated decently and that is what the Government are trying to do.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that I respect him and we try to find common causes, but it is the manifesto on which he stood and in which his Prime Minister made a commitment.

Sandra Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that various issues of concern to military families will be included in the report on the military covenant and that the content of that report should be determined by the external reference group and not by the Secretary of State?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The military covenant should not be whatever the Government of the day determine it to be. It should not be at the whim of Ministers to decide in a report what is and is not in the covenant. My hon. Friend makes a very important point.
	The Government say that it is not necessary to detail the military covenant, in principle, in law, because they are already taking action. They mention the covenant in the report and it was mentioned in the Armed Forces Bill Committee. All those involved in the debate today-except, perhaps, for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you are free from involvement in these debates-will have received an e-mail from the Royal British Legion, which stated:
	"As the nation's guardian of the Military Covenant, we would be very grateful if you could urge the Government to honour the Prime Minister's welcome commitment last June to enshrine the Military Covenant in law. We do not understand why the Government is now claiming that the commitment to produce an 'Armed Forces Covenant Report' is somehow the same thing as enshrining the Military Covenant in law. It is not the same thing at all."
	I urge hon. Members from both Government parties to listen to the legion's voice and vote for the motion today.
	The military covenant cannot be whatever Government Ministers of the day deign it to be. It should be defined in law so that it is removed from the cut and thrust of party politics. If the Secretary of State is true to his word, which I believe him to be, he should meaningfully define the covenant in law. What is needed is specific legislation to put the definition of the covenant on a legal footing. In the words of Chris Simpkins, the director general of the Royal British Legion:
	"To suggest an annual covenant report would be as effective as a piece of legislation is nonsense and would be evidence of the Government doing a U-turn on their explicit promises."

Andrew Murrison: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking for 20 minutes about putting his definition of the military covenant into law. Is he going to give us any form of definition before he winds up his remarks?

Jim Murphy: I know the hon. Gentleman understands that it is not for me to give a legal definition of the military covenant at the Dispatch Box. It is for the Government to define the principles of it in a legal sense, along with the armed forces and their families in public consultation.  [Interruption.] The Secretary of State's Parliamentary Private Secretary is screaming at the top of his voice that there is no definition. If the Conservatives were in any way interested in the matter, we could arrive at a definition of the armed forces covenant on a cross-party basis, involving armed forces families across the entire nation. In truth, they have turned their back on their own manifesto, will not listen to the British Legion and refuse to act on the issue at all.

Bob Russell: The shadow Secretary of State opened his comments with a tribute to three soldiers from the Colchester garrison. Some 3,000 of my constituents are in Helmand province, and if any of them get to watch or read about this debate, I do not think they will be impressed with the contributions that are being made. I urge Members on both sides of the House to show respect. Playing party politics with our armed forces is not what they want.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I have responded to each point raised in turn, and I will continue to do so.
	We are asking the Conservative party to maintain its manifesto commitment, and to vote for it. We will vote for its manifesto commitment today, and the country will expect Conservative Members to do the same.
	Today's debate also provides an opportunity for the Government to reflect again on their decision on the chief coroner's office. It would give families who have lost those closest to them, often in tragic, painful and extremely difficult circumstances-the type of people whom the hon. Member for Colchester was talking about-the right to the best possible investigations and military inquests into those deaths. On this day of all days, when the constitutional relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords is being considered, it is important that we listen to the House of Lords on that important issue.
	I turn to the wider of issue of Afghanistan and its impact on the covenant. We have made it clear that we will support the Government on Afghanistan whenever possible, as we did on Monday. I welcome their continued commitment to update the House on progress there, particularly in the diplomatic effort, which seems far less advanced than the military campaign.
	Those injured in Afghanistan face enormous burdens and a life of dramatic change. That places a huge responsibility on the Government and politicians of all parties to support them, so that the country fulfils its responsibility to them. Public services, public servants, charities, the private sector and Government must continually consider how best to support all our forces, particularly those who are injured. We should try to generate consensus on that at every possible opportunity.

Mike Hancock: Why does the shadow Secretary of State think that the wording in the Armed Forces Bill, which reflects the will of the country to honour the covenant, is not what the people want? How does he think it fails to cover all the issues that he is talking about? A lot of armed forces personnel and their supporters undoubtedly believe that it does cover them.

Jim Murphy: As I said earlier, the British Legion has been pretty critical and straightforward about that. The problem is the word "covenant" being used but not given a legal definition, which allows Ministers and Governments of all parties to interpret and reinterpret it in an annual report. That is why the principle of legal definition is important.

Mike Hancock: We had the same problem when the last Government refused to accept their duty of care responsibilities. They did that because nobody could clearly define, in rigid legal terms, what a duty of care was.

Kevan Jones: We did.

Mike Hancock: No, you didn't. The hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister and before that was on the Defence Committee, will remember from his experiences on the Committee that the Labour Government's big failure on the duty of care was that they were unable to define clearly what it meant.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but I listened very carefully to the British Legion's campaign for the legal principle, and to its observations of the clear, glaring weaknesses in the current arrangements.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Jim Murphy: I shall make some progress before giving way.
	As I said, it is important that where we can, we should build consensus, such as on support for the operation in Afghanistan and on the treatment of those who return, but there is one matter on which it is difficult to support the Government: the switch from retail prices index to consumer prices index for forces pensions and benefits. That is a highly charged and emotional issue-rightly-but I shall make my case carefully, and I look forward to the Secretary of State being equally careful and detailed in his reply.
	The impact of that switch will be felt by generations of our bravest, from those who jumped from landing craft on to the beaches of Normandy in 1944 to those facing the Taliban today in the Afghan desert sand. A corporal who has lost both legs in a bomb blast in Afghanistan will miss out on £500,000 in pension and benefit-related payments, and the 34-year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan will be almost £750,000 worse off over her life.
	There are only two possible justifications for that policy. The first is that Ministers think that the support that forces personnel and their dependants currently receive is overly generous, but I have not heard any of them say that. The second possible justification is, of course, deficit reduction, which Ministers do pray in aid. However, that argument does not add up. The impact of those measures will be felt long after the deficit has been paid down and the economy has returned to growth. The deficit is temporary, but those cuts will be felt for the rest of our forces' lives.

Ben Wallace: rose -

Jim Murphy: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has great experience on these matters. Does he support the Government's policy on the RPI-CPI switch?

Ben Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman said that we should reflect on the British Legion election manifesto and its 15 or 16 demands. The manifesto never mentions the covenant, but it does mention lots of solutions to help the welfare of our veterans and current serving personnel. What part of the Government's progress is he unhappy with in relation to the British Legion's manifesto, and what parts of the manifesto would he adopt sooner rather than later?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman has vast experience in such matters and I do not doubt his commitment, but there is limited validity in him brandishing last year's British Legion document when he does not accept what it says in its e-mail today-it makes it very clear that it is unhappy with the Government's position and that it would like a legal definition of the military covenant. Of course we should work on a cross-party basis on this, and I would be happy to do so-

Andrew Murrison: rose-

Jim Sheridan: rose-

Jim Murphy: I shall briefly give way to my hon. Friend.

Jim Sheridan: I concur with the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that this should be a non-partisan debate, but my right hon. Friend is right to remind the House that during the Labour years, the then Opposition constantly criticised the Government on the lack of spending on protective equipment, as did the generals. We understand why the politicians criticised the Government, but why did the generals criticise them, and why have they suddenly gone quiet in the short period since the election?

Jim Murphy: I do not wish to reopen that debate, but my hon. Friend is free to make that point whenever he wishes to do so.
	It is clear that to date, the Government's policy on the covenant and their policy on the RPI-CPI switch are policies without a patron. No Government Minister has defended them, yet Ministers expect Back-Benchers to suspend their consciences and their sense of right and wrong to vote through a policy that they have not backed.

Liam Fox: If the change from RPI to CPI in relation to the armed forces is so iniquitous, will the right hon. Gentleman give an unequivocal guarantee that Labour will reverse it?

Jim Murphy: I remember being in the Government and playing that game of saying to the Opposition, "Name your next manifesto," but it is a desperate tactic. It took me 10 years to use that tactic, but it has taken the Defence Secretary only a few months. Today, he is at the Dispatch Box but will not even stand up for his own policy. Let me give him another opportunity to do so. Does he think it fair that when the deficit is temporary, this cut should be permanent? I am giving him a chance to articulate his own policy.

Liam Fox: This merely proves the economic illiteracy of the Labour party. Even when the deficit is going down, the total debt is going up and the debt repayment is going up. It will take a very long time, even when we are into positive growth, to see the debt coming down. The Labour party knows no more about economics in opposition than it knew in government.

Jim Murphy: This comes from the right hon. Gentleman who, when in opposition, demanded more spending on absolutely everything; even in the midst of financial crisis, he was demanding more and more spending. If this move is driven by deficit reduction, the Government should come forward with a temporary measure rather than a permanent change.
	Finally, the military covenant goes to the heart of the relationship between the military, society and the Government. It should never be the exclusive property of one political party, but these permanent cuts undermine the Government's claim to be honouring the military covenant. Sir Michael Moore, chairman of the Forces Pension Society has said:
	"I have never seen a government erode the morale of the Armed Forces so quickly."
	That is a worrying position-one that we all hope to see reversed.
	The truth is that this Government have lost the courage of the conviction and conscience they had in their manifesto. One day in June last year summarises this Government's approach to the covenant. On 25 June 2010, the Prime Minister stood on the decks of the Ark Royal, surrounded by members of the Royal Navy, with Harrier jets as a backdrop, and promised a new military covenant that was written into the law of the land. Parliament did not get a vote on the decision to scrap the Ark Royal and Parliament did not get the chance to express its view on the grounding of the Harrier fleet. Today, however, Parliament has the chance to make its voice heard. We should say it loud and clear, fulfil the Conservative party manifesto pledge and define the military covenant in law.

Liam Fox: Let me too begin by expressing our condolences to the family and friends of Private Lewis Hendry, 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment; Private Conrad Lewis, 4th Battalion the Parachute Regiment; Lance Corporal Kyle Marshall, 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment; Private Dean Hutchinson, 9th Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps; and Private Robert Wood, 17th Port and Maritime Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps, all of whom have died in action in Afghanistan. Every death is a personal tragedy; they are not simply numbers, and their loss is felt by families and friends. We in this House remember them all in our thoughts and prayers.
	There is no doubt about the general desire in this country to improve and develop the armed forces covenant. It encompasses those of all ages and social groups, those with different politics and those with none. It does not and cannot exist in the abstract, however. It cannot be a wish list separated from the economic reality in which we find ourselves. A covenant between the armed forces and the British people cannot ignore the financial predicament in which the British people and their Government find themselves.
	The starting point of this debate has to take account of the economic situation inherited by the coalition Government and the state in which the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence find themselves at the end of 13 years of Labour Government. In short, the issue for the Opposition, as set out in their motion, is one of credibility, so we should examine the credibility of Labour Members on the issues that the shadow Defence Secretary described as important.

Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Liam Fox: In a moment.
	There are three charges that still hang around the necks of Labour when it comes to defence, the armed forces and the military covenant. In 13 years of power, their response to equipping our forces was often too little, too late; their spending priorities were wrong; and there was too much waste and inadequate budgetary control.
	We have learned from the Chilcot inquiry-an independent inquiry-that it was purely for political reasons that the Labour Government failed to order enough equipment, including body armour, for troops in the lead-up to the Iraq war. They did not want to send the message that they were preparing for war, and the result was under-prepared, under-equipped forces sent into conflict.
	In 2006, they failed to send enough troops and equipment into Helmand province and were painfully slow at providing more capable armoured vehicles to counter improved explosive devices. That led to a number of high-profile subsequent resignations from the Army, as has been pointed out. They went 12 years without a defence review, even though, according to numerous former Defence Ministers and service chiefs speaking at the Chilcot inquiry, the 1998 SDR was never properly funded. They overstretched our armed forces by fighting two wars on a peacetime budget.

Chris Bryant: rose-

Liam Fox: I will give way in a moment.
	The Labour Government overspent and overheated an equipment programme that contributed to a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget. In Labour's final year in power, the MOD saw a record overspend of £3.3 billion in the equipment programme. In fact, we inherited an equipment programme that has its top 15 projects £8.8 billion over budget and a cumulative delay of 32 years. When we were fighting two wars, their idea of commitment to defence and our armed forces was to appoint four different Defence Secretaries in four years, including one who served simultaneously as Defence Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland.
	Labour left a situation in which 42% of service single living accommodation in the UK, and 52% of overseas single living accommodation, was in the worst grade on a four-point scale-although in a speech that lasted half an hour, the shadow Defence Secretary did not once mention the quality of accommodation for our armed forces.
	With all that going on, Labour Defence Secretaries spent almost £250,000 on modern art for the Ministry of Defence. As former Chief of the General Staff General Sir Mike Jackson said in his autobiography, they
	"preferred to spend on abstract art money which might otherwise have directly benefited soldiers and their families. It may seem a small point, but to me it was so indicative of the cultural divide in the MoD".
	The list goes on. In this country, we judge politicians not by their words but by their actions. The Labour Government had 13 years to put matters right; we have had nine months so far, and I will set out what we have done already.

Denis MacShane: I am glad to give the Secretary of State a moment to calm down from his election speech. On 11 January last year, he wrote to Mr Yeomans in Clevedon that the Conservative Government would review the rules on awarding medals, particularly the proposed national defence medal, which has been supported by nearly 200 right hon. and hon. Members in an early-day motion. Earlier this week, however, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Astor of Hever, stated in the other place that the Ministry of Defence would not review the role or membership of the committee that would award the national defence medal if it is granted. That is a remarkable U-turn in one year. Will the Secretary of State address that point and discuss it with his ministerial colleague?

Liam Fox: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the news that we have completed the review on military medals, and today I signed off the report, which will be published, and no doubt discussed in the House, before Easter. He will get a clear answer to his questions.

Stephen McCabe: I would like to judge the Secretary of State by his actions rather than his words. What progress is he making towards the establishment of a Government-funded post-traumatic stress treatment programme as promised in the armed forces manifesto?

Liam Fox: In a moment I shall set out how we have made progress on all the manifesto commitments. The hon. Gentleman will be pleasantly surprised.

Matthew Hancock: Did the Secretary of State know about the evidence given by officials who served the Labour Government that it was the ministerial decision to delay the SDR that made the black hole that was left so big and the difficulty of getting matters in order so much greater?

Liam Fox: We could spend a great deal of time detailing the failures of the previous Government. Labour Members constantly talk about making changes as though we were in a vacuum or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, at year zero. We are in a very difficult economic predicament largely of their making, yet they talk about not only the military covenant but almost everything else as if there were no financial cost and as if we should not take what is happening in the economy into account when it comes to pensions and programmes in the Ministry of Defence.

Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the short term, while the economic situation is so bad, top priority should be given to the education of the children of those who have fallen in action or who have been so grievously wounded that their future earning power will never be restored?

Liam Fox: As I might have expected, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. In the programme for government, we listed a number of measures that will start the process of rebuilding the covenant, and I am pleased to be able to set out to him those that we have already accomplished.
	As I have said on a number of occasions in the House, no decisions taken in the strategic defence and security review will have a negative impact on our mission in Afghanistan. In fact, we have already made great strides in improving the conditions for those serving on the front line. In our nine months in office, we have doubled the operational allowance that was paid under the previous Government to over £5,000. Labour could have done so, but did not. We have changed the rules on rest and recuperation, so any lost days of leave-due to delays in the air bridge or any other operational requirements-will be added to post-tour leave. The previous Government could have done that, but they chose not to. We have also pledged to provide university and further education scholarships to the children of members of the armed forces who have been killed since 1990. The previous Government could have chosen to do so, but in 13 years they did not. The current Government have now included 36,000 service children as part of the pupil premium, recognising the uniqueness of service life and its effect on service children and service communities. Labour could have done so, but did not in 13 years.

John McDonnell: rose -

Liam Fox: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why not.

John McDonnell: I want to concentrate on a more serious issue, which I would like the Secretary of State to- [Interruption.] May I complete what I am saying? The Secretary of State has focused on the past Government's record, of which I have also been critical, but last week the current Government introduced an immigration fees order which I objected to, and which I see has been carried on a deferred Division today. The explanatory notes explain that it introduces for the first time the power for the Government to charge fees for the registration as British citizens of the children born to British armed forces personnel serving abroad. It cannot be right that we are penalising the children and families of service personnel serving abroad on our orders. I ask the Secretary of State to liaise with the Home Secretary to ensure that she exercises her discretion to waive these fees.

Liam Fox: I am also aware of some of the implications of that, and my officials have already had discussions about the issue with my Cabinet colleagues. I will write to the hon. Gentleman when I have some progress to report.

Chris Bryant: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Liam Fox: Not at the moment.
	I have set out a number of areas where the Government have already acted in just nine months. Some £61.6 million has been allocated in the current financial year for the upgrade of, and improvement programmes for, service accommodation. That will include upgrading some 800 service family homes to the top standard, with a further 4,000 properties benefiting from other improvements such as new kitchens and bathrooms.
	Of course, in the current tight financial situation priorities must be established. My welfare priority will be mental health. We have accepted in full the mental health plan for service personnel and veterans set out in the report by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). That will provide a range of improvements in mental health care, including increasing the number of mental health professionals from mental health trusts looking out for veterans and introducing structured mental health surveillance inquiries into routine service medical examinations and all discharge medicals.
	The Government are committed to improving health care for our service personnel and have committed an additional £20 million in the SDSR for this purpose, part of which will be used to deliver further enhanced military mental health care services. I believe this must be our priority because it is all too easy to see the physical wounds of war, but the unseen mental wounds of war have too often gone undiagnosed and untreated, and all our society demands that we do not allow a mental health time bomb to be created.

Chris Bryant: rose -

Jim Sheridan: rose -

Liam Fox: I give way to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan).

Jim Sheridan: The right hon. Gentleman is explaining the promises or pledges in his party manifesto. Do they include his pledge to compensate Christmas Island veterans, many of whom will be watching this debate and wanting an answer?

Liam Fox: That was not a commitment in the Conservative manifesto, but Ministers will constantly review the issue, as happened under previous Governments.

Chris Bryant: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Liam Fox: We have waited a long time, so I hope it's a cracker.

Chris Bryant: I want to ask the Secretary of State about 160 Brigade. As he knows it is the Welsh brigade based in Brecon. Secret discussions have been going on over the last few weeks about collapsing the brigade and joining it with the West Midlands, which would mean there was no longer a Welsh brigade. Can he give an absolute assurance that that will not happen?

Liam Fox: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are ongoing discussions in the armed forces, but as he has heard me say on a number of occasions, I am very keen that we have United Kingdom armed forces and that we maintain the footprint as widely as possible across the UK. If he wants to talk to me directly about that, I shall be happy to meet him.
	Labour's legacy means that there is not enough to do all that we would like to do, but we can make a start. None of it alone will instantly rebuild the covenant, but it is a step in the right direction. In the difficult economic circumstances the coalition Government have inherited, where all parts of society are making sacrifices, repairing the covenant will not be straightforward. The armed forces are subject to the difficult decisions we have had to make on pay, pensions and allowances across Government.
	Neither the Prime Minister nor I came into politics to see cuts in the armed forces, but we have to deal with the reality of the legacy. Every Department has to make a contribution to deficit reduction and the Ministry of Defence can be no exception. We have to put the economy on the right track for the sake of our national security.
	The coalition agreement recognises that we have to do more to ensure that our armed forces and their families have the support they need, and are treated with the dignity they deserve. Some of what we need to do will cost money, and with budgets squeezed, we may not be able to go as quickly as we want, but we will make progress where we can. The recent report on the covenant commissioned by the Prime Minister from the military historian Professor Hew Strachan suggests a number of ways to move forward. We are implementing some of them now and will announce in the near future the other recommendations we support.
	As Members know, the military covenant was conceived as an expression of the mutual obligations that exist between the nation, the Army and each individual soldier. In consultation with service charities and others, the Government are rewriting the covenant as a new tri-service document-the armed forces covenant-which expresses the enduring, general principles that should govern the relationship between the nation, the Government and the armed forces community as a whole. It will include all three services, veterans, family members and local communities, thereby broadening the scope of the covenant. We shall publish it in the spring.
	The reserve forces form an intrinsic part of the UK's defence capability and thus the armed forces community. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for ensuring that reservists are treated fairly and with respect, and that they are valued. In the drafting of the armed forces covenant, reserves have been considered equally alongside regulars. That will set the tone for Government policy aimed at improving the support available for serving and former members of the armed forces, and the families who carry so much of the burden, especially, as we remember today, in the event of injury or death.

Charlie Elphicke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an extraordinary situation for the Opposition to call a debate on the military covenant, which by their own admission they cannot define, yet we have heard from my right hon. Friend a clear definition of the covenant, which is being written into the law of the land?

Liam Fox: It is surprising that the Opposition should be so desperate for a definition of the military covenant in law, yet fail to produce one themselves. It is just as absurd as their claim that they are trying to implement the Conservative manifesto on the subject. I happen to have the Conservative manifesto of 2010 in my hand and I see no commitment whatever to writing the military covenant into law. Indeed, we have gone further than our manifesto commitment in the coalition agreement by trying to take that forward. It is one of the elements that shows that the coalition Government were able to work together to go further than either party had done in the manifestos that we issued at the general election.
	We need to ensure that progress is made, year on year. That is why we have brought forward legislation in the Armed Forces Bill requiring the Defence Secretary to present an armed forces covenant report to Parliament every year. I hope to deliver the first of those reports in the autumn.

John Woodcock: Is the Secretary of State saying that his party never made a commitment to enshrining the principles in law? If he is not saying that, will he set out why his position has changed on this difficult subject?

Liam Fox: We are for the first time recognising the covenant in law. We are setting it out in law in the Armed Forces Bill that the Secretary of State for Defence will be required to come to the House of Commons, and when we have published the tri-forces covenant, the House of Commons will be able to decide whether the Government have lived up to their part of the bargain. I find it extraordinary that nine months into the new Government, when we are writing that into the law, we get complaints from the Opposition, who did not once try to do so in 13 years in power.
	The covenant will set out how we are supporting our armed forces, their families and veterans in key areas such as health care, housing and education. It will be the first time the existence of the armed forces covenant has been recognised in statute. For that, I think all fair-minded people would believe that the coalition Government deserve some credit.

Geoffrey Cox: Although I applaud what the Secretary of State is saying about his support for veterans and former members of the armed forces, may I draw to his attention the case of my constituent, Ann Dexter, whose son Richard Coombes is suffering from dire mental health problems as a consequence of his injury on active service? The Ministry of Defence was ordered by a judge to pay him £130,000 compensation but still, three years later, not all of that compensation has been paid. Will my right hon. Friend look into that case urgently and get back to the family to explain why the Ministry of Defence has not paid the compensation that it was ordered to pay?

Liam Fox: I am very surprised that three years after it was ordered by a judge to be paid, that compensation has not been paid. I will certainly look into the case that my hon. and learned Friend mentions.
	The Government alone cannot provide all the support required so we are determined to strengthen the links with the charitable sector, which does so much good work, often unsung. In many ways those organisations are also heroes in our countries when it comes to the armed forces. Involving the charitable sector is the only way we can make a reality of the armed forces covenant, because the duty of care is on all of us, not simply the Government.
	From now on, however, the Government are obliged to report progress on the covenant to Parliament annually. That will ensure that this Government, and indeed all future Governments, are held to account by Parliament. I made it clear last month on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill that the external reference group, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), will also continue to monitor Government progress. But it is about progress on the covenant on all sides, not just the Government's. The covenant is not just between the Government and the armed forces. It is a covenant with the whole of society. That is why I find the external reference group to be of such value. It will bring independence and clear-mindedness.

Sandra Osborne: When the Secretary of State refers to communities, does that include local communities where there are currently armed forces bases? What about the contribution that they have made over the years, and what about the economic impact on those communities of the closure of bases?

Liam Fox: As the hon. Lady knows, we are spending a great deal of time and effort getting the balance of the bases correct, primarily for our national security needs, but we will also take into account the social and other impacts that the changes will have. The hon. Gentleman from the Scottish National party who is normally in his seat usually intervenes at this point. We are aware of the changes-

Jim Shannon: rose -

Liam Fox: Wrong one.
	The point is well made by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock. We understand the problems that we face, but it was inevitable when we had to make reductions under the SDSR that there would be changes to the basing. We are sympathetic to the local needs that she mentions.

Bob Russell: The Secretary of State will join me in mentioning a body that, as far as I recall, has not yet been referred to-the reserves and Territorials, without whom our actions in Afghanistan would be all the poorer.

Liam Fox: I realise that I might have a soporific effect on Members, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed my reference to the importance of the reserves. The Government are acutely aware of their importance and the part they play in the wider security of our country.

Jim Shannon: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Liam Fox: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I rather ignored him a moment ago.

Jim Shannon: I speak not as an Irish or Scottish nationalist, but as a Northern Ireland Unionist. I know that the Secretary of State has already responded on the need to look after those with health and mental health conditions, but I have recently met people who had lost limbs, whether legs or arms, so will he indicate what help will be available for those people, because they have had the trauma of the physical disablement and of the resulting mental disablement? I am keen to hear what he will do to help those people.

Liam Fox: Those who suffer traumatic amputations, and often multiple traumatic amputations, increasingly get very high-quality care in this country, both from what the military and the NHS are doing.  [ Interruption. ] Members on the Opposition Front Bench say that that is thanks to the previous Government, and I acknowledge their work on that front. With regard to the interface between the NHS and other services, we are again working increasingly to ensure that we get constructive action between them. Any Member who has visited the medical service or Headley Court will realise just what a high-quality service our armed forced get in this country. It is something of which the whole country, irrespective of politics, should be proud.
	Looking after people who are currently serving is only part of the covenant; the duty of care does not end when active service ends. The community of veterans in Britain is estimated to be around 5 million strong. The vast majority of men and women who serve make the transition to civilian life successfully. Many of the skills they learn in the armed forces are highly sought after, as are their character traits: self-discipline, self-reliance and leadership. However, for a small number the transition is not so easy. Some find it difficult to get work or struggle to fit in. Others may suffer more serious problems, both physical and mental, as a result of their service, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has pointed out. Those are the people who most need our help.
	First, we need to give people the help they need when they leave. It takes time to turn a civilian into a soldier, so we should take time to turn a soldier into a civilian. Our resettlement programme helps service leavers to navigate civilian life; everything from finding a job, to benefits, education and retraining. We are making sure that it is focused on those who need it most.
	For example, ex-service personnel now get more support to study at university. The Department for Education is drawing up plans to create a new programme called "Troops to Teachers" to get experienced, high-quality ex-service personnel into the teaching profession. In a country where it is often claimed that there are not enough role models, believe me there are plenty in the armed forces.
	Secondly, when a veteran falls on hard times, there should be somewhere to turn. The problems can result from debt, homelessness, addiction or mental illness resulting from their service. Such difficulties can occur years after leaving the services, so we need a proper partnership between all arms of government, national and local, and with the NHS. That means ensuring that veterans get fair access to local housing schemes, providing more money and more nurses for mental health and working with the charitable sector to get the right support to the right people at the right time.
	Having worked as a doctor for some years with service personnel and their families, I have seen at first hand some of the difficulties and stress surrounding service life. Many of the pressures are the same faced by ordinary families up and down the country, but others are unique. Those have to be dealt with sensitively and appropriately.

Tom Watson: The Secretary of State is being very gracious, and I do appreciate him letting me in.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little clearer with me about the definition of "military covenant"? In the Bill Committee last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) said that he thought the military covenant was a "conceptual" thing, a "philosophical statement", and that it would have
	"the same legal position as the service Command Paper". --[ Official Report, Armed Forces Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2011; c. 22.]
	Is that the case? Can the Secretary of State give me his definition of the military covenant, so that he might explain to his Minister what it is?

Liam Fox: I have already set out that what my right hon. Friend says is true. There is a concept of what the covenant means in terms of the relationship between the armed forces and the people of this country, and the responsibility that the people of this country have not only to those serving in the armed forces, but to their families and to veterans. As I said very clearly, however, we are setting out and will publish in the spring a tri-service covenant for the first time. It has to go beyond the traditional covenant, which related to the Army; we are discussing the issue with the charitable sector and the armed forces; and we will publish that new tri-service covenant in the spring.
	I am aware of the time constraints, Mr Speaker, so let me just remind the House of the point with which I began. This year, the £43 billion that the UK will spend on debt interest payments-the debt that the previous Government left behind-amounts to more than the Ministry of Defence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and international aid budgets combined. If we did not have it hanging around our necks, how much more could we do on service housing, health care or allowances? Instead, we will get absolutely nothing back for that money. We cannot sustain that level of deficit and debt without losing our influence in the world or being forced to limit our foreign policy and defence options. If we learned anything as a country from the cold war, it was that the stronger our economy, the better our national security and the more we can do for our service personnel.
	Labour's economic policies created a national security liability that goes behind the hard end of national security and impacts on how we treat our armed forces, their families and the veterans through the covenant. Labour wants to, but cannot, wash away its legacy by ignoring its actions while in government-a Government of whom Opposition Members were a part.
	There is no point in the people who left us broke complaining that we are not doing enough. There is no point in the people who had 13 years to deliver, but failed to, telling us that we have not done enough in nine months. The shadow Defence Secretary is a very decent man, but he represents a party that failed in its duty to the armed forces. It has no creditability on the issues that should have been dealt with when the money was available in earlier years.
	Because of the nation's dreadful finances, we as a Government are being forced to take some tough decisions-including on allowances and on pensions. We do not do so because we want to; we do so because we have to. We do so because, as the outgoing Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury actually said in his note, "Sorry, there is no money left". Perhaps it was a joking matter for Labour, but it is deadly serious for the armed forces.
	The coalition Government are taking the difficult decisions required to deal with Labour's legacy, and we will continue to rebuild the armed forces covenant. I wish we could go faster, but we will go as fast as we can. Opposition Members got us into this mess; this Government will get us out of it.

David Crausby: My dad landed in France and ran up the beach on D-day. If he was alive today, he would tell us that it was the fastest that he ran in his entire life. He would freely admit that, as he crouched in the landing craft heading for shore, with bullets pinging off the infrastructure, he was petrified of the doors opening. When they finally opened, his stomach turned over, and he went up that beach in full kit faster than Linford Christie. He made it unscathed to the top, but the next day he had most of his stomach blown out by a German shell in a field just beyond the beach. He suffered for it every day of his life for the next 48 years. In return, he received a small pension from the Government and spent the rest of his life worrying about losing it. He was grateful for the money. He spent most of it on beer, if the truth were known, but he enjoyed every pint. Was he worth it? Damn right he was, every penny, because without him and his mates, there would be a foreign flag flying over this Parliament- assuming, that is, that this building existed at all. We owe him, along with thousands of his comrades, a debt of honour. We must never forget that.
	The very same applies to our present-day forces. They may be small in number, but when they put their lives on the line we have a duty to look after them, and their families.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the military power of our great country has been, is and always will be a projection of our economic power, which has been devastated by the mismanagement of the last Government?

David Crausby: I will get to that point.
	We do not expect our forces to join a trade union or allow them to go on strike, so they are entitled to be treated differently. My dad lay in that French field for two days before he was found, but he was eventually flown back to the UK and put back together. When he recovered, he voted Labour, and he never missed the opportunity to vote Labour in every election until the day he died. I make that point simply because this is not a party political issue. Many of his comrades returned to vote Conservative, and Liberal, and other weird things, as was their entitlement, and some did not bother to vote at all. So it is shameful to turn the matter of the covenant into a point-scoring party political issue, as the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) did.
	We all know that we are in difficult circumstances, but I do not know what my dad would say about cutting soldiers' allowances at the same time as Barclays pay their investment bankers 20% more-not to mention making Afghan veterans redundant by e-mail, which is even worse than when John Major made Bosnian front-line veterans redundant by post. I suppose that the MOD has at least come up to date.

Bob Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Crausby: For the last time.

Bob Stewart: John Major did not do that. I told Bosnian soldiers that they were made redundant personally by waking them up in the morning and telling them as they woke up, and then I gave them the paper. That was rotten.

David Crausby: In any event, it was shameful. Whatever my dad would have said about it, I assure people that it would not have been pretty.
	The truth is that our defence expenditure is already too low, and has been for years when measured against our foreign policy aspirations. The most important pound that we earn is the one that we defend our families and our country with whenever we are in danger. When we are at war, it should be the last pound that we cut, and we must certainly never cut it from the people who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for us.
	Over the next few years, we will be spending countless billions on aircraft carriers, on fighter planes, on unmanned aerial vehicles, on nuclear submarines and on nuclear missiles; it will no doubt end up being very much more than the MOD's current estimates. So what are we playing at in cutting a relatively small sum from our armed forces' children's education? Last year in June, our Prime Minister stood on Ark Royal and talked about making formal commitments on matters such as education for military children and care for those injured on the battlefield. He said:
	"I want all these things refreshed and renewed and written down in a new military covenant that's written into the law of the land."
	He did not say, "I want an annual report."
	Let me give the Prime Minister a tip, and perhaps the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence will take note: if he expects to retain any political or personal integrity in life, he must not make promises that he cannot keep. We can understand Liberals making promises that they do not expect to keep, but the Tories should know better.

Mark Lancaster: It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby), who has been an excellent member of the Defence Committee for several years. The moving story of his father reminded me of a T-shirt that we had printed when I commanded a bomb disposal squadron. On the front it said, "I'm a bomb disposal officer," and on the back it said, "If you see me running, try to keep up."
	I start, of course, by declaring my interest as a serving member of the armed forces. It was an honour to serve in Bosnia and Kosovo, and I am grateful to the previous Government for allowing me to serve in Afghanistan in 2006. I wish to make it clear that any limited experience that I have pales into insignificance compared with that of those who are serving in Afghanistan today.
	Much of the debate has been about whether the Government should enshrine the military covenant in law, or whether there should be a report on the military covenant by law. I am not a lawyer and, to be honest, I do not know about that. As a member of the armed forces and like fellow members of the armed forces, I do not really care. What is important to me is not whether we enshrine it in law. That is a process point which demonstrates how out of touch the House of Commons is with our armed forces. What is important to me is that this and future Governments are judged by what is achieved-by the output of the military covenant. I reserve the right in future years to come back and give my assessment on this Government and future Governments when we have reports on the military covenant in this place.
	We have talked a lot about morale in the armed forces, and I will pinpoint one moment. I was excited in 2006 when the previous Government introduced the operational allowance, and I pay tribute to them for that. I received it, and for the record, I donated it to the Royal British Legion because I thought that was the right thing to do as a Member of Parliament. However, I also remember the horror when we discovered that, at the same time, the longer service separation allowance had been cut by almost exactly the same amount. There was a great fanfare by Tony Blair about the introduction of the operational allowance, and yet the cut to the longer service separation allowance was made quietly. Although I fully support this Government's doubling of the operational allowance, I give the caveat that members of our armed forces will be looking carefully at their payslips in future, such is the cynicism of many of them. We must be very careful on that point.
	Another example is the introduction of the new payment system, the computerised joint personnel administration system. It had many gremlins, but such is the way with computer systems. One of the biggest problems with that system, which really upset members of the armed forces, related to the allowances. If somebody went from A to B, rather than being told what their allowances were, they had to go and find out. It was a pool system and people were not notified of what their allowances were. Like many of the benefits that were introduced, people were not automatically entitled to them. That needs to change.
	The air bridge was mentioned in the opening remarks of the debate. I experienced the problems of the air bridge in 2006: being woken up five hours before the flight; getting stuck in Cyprus; not being able to ring home to tell the family that one would be late; finally getting back two days later; missing some leave; and having one's rifle sent to Aldershot, one's bag sent home and one's other kit sent elsewhere. I raised those concerns in the Chamber and there has been some improvement, but there are still major problems. I welcome the Government's move to ensure that any leave that one misses as a result of those problems is added to the end of one's post-tour leave. Some say that should happen in that two-week period, but that is impractical. It would be simply impossible for a commanding officer in Afghanistan to man his various companies without knowing when soldiers may return.
	Finally, I want to say a few words about the reserves. As a reservist, I was delighted that the Secretary of State mentioned the reserves in his opening remarks. There was deep concern back in 2009 when, as reservists, we were told out of the blue that there would be no more training for six months because of mid-year savings. That decision was wrong, so I was delighted that the then Government saw the error of their ways and corrected it. However, that decision should never have been taken. If we are to promote a one-Army concept, we cannot treat the reserves as second-class citizens. I would like a reassurance that such silly measures, which target the Territorial Army and undermine the one-Army concept, will not be introduced again.
	The Government's move to recognise the military covenant in a Bill for the first time is to be welcomed. We can argue about the semantics, but as I said at the start of my speech, I and many other members of the armed forces will judge this and successive Governments not on the detail, but on what is achieved.

Madeleine Moon: I am incredibly pleased to follow the first two Back-Bench contributions to this debate. I hope that my contribution will be of the same incredibly high order, because it is that high level of debate that our armed forces want to hear from this Chamber, not the yah-boo politics that we heard from the Front Benches.
	The military covenant is about the duty of care and the principles of that duty. It must set out the responsibilities of the Government and the country to those who serve and have risked their lives, just as the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) did and as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) has done. The military covenant is about people who do not have a choice over where they go or what they are called on to do-people who have no right to strike or raise objections; people who have no voice. The military covenant should give a voice to those voiceless, and it must be enshrined in law.
	Why must the military covenant be enshrined in law? At the moment, our military is suffering from insecurity and instability. Morale is at an all-time low. Everyone in the Chamber has talked to military families. They will have had military families come to their surgeries who are concerned about how they will weather the strategic defence and security review, the cuts in allowances that have suddenly come upon them and the job losses, whether they are civil servants, many of whom are ex-military, or serving military personnel. There are pressures and tensions everywhere across our armed forces.
	The sacking of personnel by e-mail has sent shock waves through the armed forces. The failure to follow through on the training commitment to those young people-many were hours away from completing four years of training to achieve a qualification that would have carried them through the rest of their lives-has devastated families and young people.
	Why has the British Legion taken the unusual step of writing to Members of Parliament to ask that the military covenant be endorsed in law? This is a matter of trust, but I do not think that we demonstrate a tremendous amount of trust when we descend into making party political points about the military covenant. I am sorry to say that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have already become the parties of broken promises and broken commitments- [ Interruption. ] I have to say that promises have also been broken by my party.
	All of us have a duty to make the highest level of commitment to our armed forces, and we should be judged by our actions. We can all make a list of the things we have done and the things we have failed to do, but what we really need to do is think of the consequences in our communities, because families can be devastated by the decisions that come out of this Chamber. Young people's futures can be destroyed when their dreams of serving their country are thrown away, after they have read about the decision in a national newspaper.
	The military covenant must not be simply a concept or a philosophy; it must be something that people can hold in their hands and feel secure about. It must be something that we, as a country, stand up to and stand by. Our armed forces and their families need to know that, whatever Government are in power, we will stand strongly by our commitments to them and that we will honour those commitments. As I have handed over veterans badges across my constituency over the past few years, I have seen the pride that people still felt about their years of service. They felt that those were the best years of their lives, and the times when they were most alive. We must honour those people, and make a commitment to them in law. If we are to have only a report, there must at the very least be a commitment to a free vote on the covenant for every Member of the House.

Patrick Mercer: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who more than lived up to her own billing. She spoke with great passion and great insight. I was also amused to hear the account from the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) of what his father had done on D-day. If anyone had asked my father what he had done in the war, he would have said, "Actually, I was a D-day dodger." My father was wounded three times in Italy, but the events there never got the coverage that the troops in France did. The hon. Gentleman's contribution was a fascinating one. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) gave us his insight into his own service, albeit as a reservist, and being called up to the front line. That was extremely interesting.
	My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is preparing a document on the military covenant, and I have recently been asked what the covenant means to me. I was brought up to believe that the military covenant was the link between soldiers and officers, and between the nation and those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and their officers. Even more importantly, it is the link between the nation and the families, to whom the nation owes so much. I would like to pick up on a point that the hon. Member for Bridgend made, which is that the military covenant stands way above party politics. Yesterday's urgent question showed the House of Commons at its absolute best. It was about looking after the little people who do so much to defend this nation. I will expand on that in a moment.
	In 1996, I led Nottinghamshire's own regiment, the Sherwood Foresters, through what was to be my constituency of Newark. We were essentially a peacetime army: we had come back from Northern Ireland and from Bosnia, but we were essentially a peacetime army. The burghers of Newark were polite, courteous and enthusiastic. The town was glad to see us.
	Two years ago, the successor to that battalion, now sadly called 2 Mercian, paraded after its last tour in Afghanistan, where it had picked up a record number of conspicuous gallantry crosses-more than any other battalion in the British Army. The town was mobbed. There was standing room only. Women and children were out on the streets. Union flags were being waved; regimental flags were being waved. The boys were overwhelmed by what they saw, and I was overwhelmed as well. I could not believe it. This was the military covenant put into practice.
	What we must understand is that we are mere representatives of those people who were either marching or waving their flags. We must not make the mistake of believing that those kids off the streets of Newark, be they serving in Afghanistan or clapping from the pavements, understand or care about the semantics, the language and the legalities which we use so much and find so precious. What this is about is making sure that we honour our men, our women, our fighters and their families. Whether it be in law or whether it be simply talked about, as we are talking about it today, that is the important thing.

Pamela Nash: I do not think that anyone in the House disagrees with what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he agree that legislating for a military covenant would allow military families to trust the Government to provide everything that he mentions?

Patrick Mercer: I do not know and I do not care. What I do know is that when it works, it works superbly. I hope to say more about that shortly, but first let me explain how we have let our troops down and how the military covenant has been compromised.
	Let me point out to all Members who were serving here at the time that this week in 2006, on 14 February, we had a debate which my friends and colleagues on the Opposition Benches will particularly remember. Troops were being committed to the Helmand valley in Afghanistan, an area where, in 1880, a British brigade lost 1,000 men in four hours, and where a Russian regimental unit lost 700 men over three days. We committed troops to that area without enough guns, without enough helicopters, without enough ammunition, and without enough bayonet power to do the job. That was the worst sort of compromise of the military covenant, and it was not done by Ministers wittingly. Most of it was done by career officers who did not understand that the military covenant involves the people who will do the fighting, not the talking and the theorising. That is what we must get right.
	My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned the notice given to troops who were made redundant after Bosnia. I do not remember that, but I do know that in battalions such as the Cheshire Regiment, whose reputation stands high, the news of that measure was given by the commanding officer personally, because leadership was exercised. That is the point. The military covenant is about the exercise of leadership by officers and Ministers, and by the families whom both represent.
	Yesterday, we heard about the most awful nonsense that had occurred some time earlier. A major had given news by e-mail of the sacking of a number of warrant officers who were serving all over the world. I appreciate that that was difficult to administer, but is notable that an urgent question was asked, that the Speaker allowed it to be dealt with in the Chamber, and that Members on both sides of the House stood up for those warrant officers against the leviathan that the Army can be. That was the Chamber at its best, and the military covenant at its best, because we were looking after the people whom we have a sacred duty to look after. I do not care whether that is written into law; the point is that we must get it right. We must honour these men, we must honour these women, and we must honour their families. That is a military covenant.

Sandra Osborne: It is an incredible pleasure to follow all the Back Benchers who have spoken this evening, as their speeches have shown the House of Commons at its best in terms of expertise and the passion with which Members have been speaking.
	I start by paying tribute to our forces and the sacrifices they make for our country, and by referring to the grief of the families of those who have been lost. When I recently went to Afghanistan with the Select Committee on Defence, we visited a forward operating base-I believe this was the first time the Committee had done so-and the dangers faced by our soldiers on a daily basis were obvious and very humbling. Through the work taking place there and at Camp Bastion, together with the training of the Afghan army and police, we are seeing real progress, but for me it was the professionalism of our forces that shone through. The best part of the visit came when we spoke face to face with members of the forces. I was left in no doubt that they are extremely worried about their terms and conditions, and their future pension arrangements, and that many did not feel that they were being treated fairly. I had similar conversations when the previous Government were in office and I acknowledge that members of the armed forces were not happy then either. We have to acknowledge that much more can be done. The shadow Secretary of State outlined what had been done, but we need to make more progress.
	In the House, we are rightly always hearing warm words of appreciation for our forces, but they can ring hollow if they are not put into practice in the military covenant and if promises are made and then not kept. In the Armed Forces Bill Committee, the Minister responsible for veterans said that the covenant is a "moral obligation" and a "philosophical statement" and therefore does not need to be spelled out in detail or enshrined in law. That is, of course, the exact opposite of the promise that the Prime Minister made on the Ark Royal-the "Ark of the covenant" perhaps.
	My constituency in the south-west of Scotland covers large parts of Ayrshire that are closely associated with the Covenanters, who stood for the preservation of Presbyterianism against all attempts to re-establish Catholic or Episcopalian Church government-that is perhaps not the happiest of illustrations for our Front-Bench team of Murphy and Doyle to take on board. My point is merely that covenants are scattered throughout history, nowhere more so than in biblical times. They often represented the most deeply held beliefs and were of life and death proportions. The adjectives most commonly associated with them were words such as "solemn" and "binding". It was seldom enough for them to be written in the hearts and minds; it was far better for them to be written on tablets of stone or in blood.
	The military covenant is no less a thing; it is not a mere service level agreement and it is more than a bundle of moral obligations or philosophical statements. Moral obligations and philosophical statements do not pay the bills for our service personnel or veterans, nor do they give guarantees in legislation, which is the promise that was made and the promise that should be kept.

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend is making a tremendously impressive speech on this issue. The people of Barnsley, in my constituency, have great regard for the armed forces and they expect the Members they elect to this House to reflect that fact in not only everything they say, but everything they do. Does she agree with that?

Sandra Osborne: Yes, very much so.
	We are fortunate that both the Armed Forces Bill Committee and the Defence Committee contain Members who have served with distinction in the armed forces, for example, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), who spoke with such authority. I have not served in the forces, so I am grateful that I have had the chance to take part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. As hon. Members will know, the scheme allows MPs to spend some 22 days a year with a particular service. Surprisingly enough, in my case it was with the Royal Marines and although it was in no way equivalent to the experience of actual service, it certainly opened my eyes to the reality of the job being done, as well as providing opportunities to speak frankly and off the record to the rank and file. I commend the scheme to hon. Members who might not be aware of it-it is very useful, especially given that relatively few Members of the House have served with the armed forces.
	One issue that worries me about the Armed Forces Bill is the narrow way it is framed in terms of specifying the issues that should be included in the covenant. Education, health and housing are very important, but none of them comes under the remit of the MOD. That is not an adequate list of the many issues that exist and, as hon. Members have said, are by no means the only matters of concern. Pensions are of major concern and not just in relation to the retail prices index/consumer prices index debate: widows' allowances are also of concern. The agreement on pensions is being changed retrospectively and members of the armed forces feel aggrieved about that because they joined the forces in the belief that they would be guaranteed a decent pension. Now they feel let down. I mentioned the external reference group earlier because I think it is important that we have a level of independence. I do not make a party political point: I believe that Governments of any persuasion have a vested interest in highlighting the areas that suit them and ignoring those that do not. For example, why have pensions not been included even though they are obviously a hot issue?
	Health care is extremely important and I was delighted to hear that the Secretary of State is prioritising mental health services. Combat Stress in my constituency does a tremendous job for people who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, including through cognitive behavioural therapy. I strongly welcome the prioritisation of mental health services and I look forward to the development of further services, but I repeat that a promise made should be a promise kept.

Bob Russell: I thank Back Benchers on both sides of the Chamber for having retrieved the debate, as  Hansard will record. The debate will be read by many service personnel and former military personnel and, as I said in an earlier intervention, it does not go down well to play party politics with our armed forces.
	Having served on the previous Armed Forces Bill-now the Armed Forces Act 2006-and on the Committee debating the current Armed Forces Bill, I pay tribute to the previous Government for the many advances that were made regarding the welfare and interests of our serving personnel and their families.
	I have no recollection of the military covenant-now known as the armed forces covenant-being mentioned in our deliberations on the previous Bill. That concept has been brought about by the efforts of the Royal British Legion, to which I pay tribute. I also thank the Secretary of State for praising reservists and for reiterating that praise when I intervened on him, because that is part of the one-Army concept. Serving reservists and their families are sometimes left out of the debate.
	The armed forces covenant will be enshrined in law when the Bill is enacted because those words will appear in legislation for the first time and because the Secretary of State will be required to come to the House each year and make a report. I am pretty confident that any Secretary of State who for whatever reason tried to airbrush out matters of concern would be quickly picked up, and quite rightly so, by any Member who thought such issues were being ignored.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that the covenant will be enshrined in law, but he attended the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill the other day when the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), said of the covenant:
	"As I have explained already, it will be a conceptual, philosophical statement, and it will have about the same legal position as the service Command Paper".
	To say that it will be enshrined in law is complete nonsense.

Bob Russell: I am not a lawyer; all I know is that the Bill, which I hope will become an Act, refers to the armed forces covenant. Should there be more than that, or should there be less? I do not know, but I do know that as the years unfold, that concept will be developed and built upon. Not only the Royal British Legion but other charities are involved. We have heard about the external reference group, but in fact a breakdown of that group has shown that the majority of its membership is within Government. It is more of an internal reference group, with a few very important external people added on.

Sandra Osborne: The hon. Gentleman will recall from the activities of the Bill Committee that the devolved Administrations are involved in the external reference group. So far, that is the only way in which they have been consulted on the Bill. Does he agree that such consultation is important?

Bob Russell: I have every confidence that the devolved Assemblies and elected representatives from the areas that they cover will not be silent on the Bill.
	On Monday, members of the Committee visited the Colchester garrison, Merville barracks. They witnessed a virtually deserted barracks, because virtually ever soldier of 16 Air Assault Brigade is currently serving in Helmand province. I should like to place on record my admiration of, and thanks to, all soldiers in that brigade, including those from other nations who are attached to it. I understand that three people from the Danish army attached to it have lost their lives.
	Members of the Select Committee also saw the modern housing there, which is single person's accommodation, for which the last Government can take credit. I do not agree with its being funded by a private finance initiative, because it will cost the public purse more in the long run, but it is the yardstick by which the provision of all accommodation for single military personnel will be judged in future. However, the Committee also saw the outside of some of the family accommodation. Although we did not go inside, it is accepted that some of it is not as good as it should be.
	Across the road, former Army housing, now acquired by a housing association, is having millions of pounds spent on it from the public purse to provide additional rented accommodation for civilians. That accommodation is welcome, but when an Army family living in their substandard house see public money being spent across the road on modernising the most up-to-date housing available, they have to ask what the military covenant is doing. How can the Government find money to do up houses for civilians, which of course I welcome, yet tell us that there is no money to modernise the housing of people whose soldier husbands are serving in Afghanistan and putting their lives on the line? That has to be addressed. I am not making any party political point, because the families we met were not bothered about party politics as far as I could tell. They just wanted their Government to do something about the problem.
	I shall end by talking about education, which is one of the three subjects covered by the covenant under the Bill, although others will flow from them. The pupil premium has been mentioned, and I welcome the concept, but it has not yet been spelled out to me what the criteria will be for that money stream to come forward for the children of military personnel. It will be one thing to identify military children on Army, Navy and Air Force bases, where the majority of the children at the local school will be from a military background. However, we know that increasing numbers of armed forces personnel do not live on military bases. How will the pupil premium find its way to young people from such families?
	I welcome the Armed Forces Bill, and I believe that the armed forces covenant will be enshrined in the law of the land. I do not want to argue about the legal semantics, but the Bill is a huge step forward and we should thank the Royal British Legion for all its work.

Teresa Pearce: I am proud to represent my constituency, which has a long military history-the arsenal at Woolwich is on our doorstep, and the new town of Thamesmead was built on arsenal land-but I am also proud to be a member of the Thamesmead Town and Abbey Wood Royal British Legion, and it is on behalf of my fellow members that I want to make just one point.
	The Conservatives said in their armed forces manifesto that they would look into Lord Boyce's armed forces compensation scheme review to see whether the reforms were improving things for veterans. I suggest that they also look at how the policies of other Whitehall Departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, will affect the conditions for current and future veterans. The scale of the reduction in benefits following the switch from RPI to CPI will wipe out the increases in lump-sum payments that the previous Government introduced following the Boyce review. Far from improving conditions for veterans, that change will be a backward step and a huge blow to members of the armed forces, war widows and their families, because they rely on pensions earlier than other public sector workers. In their lives, members of the armed forces face the risk of injury-both physical and mental-and so rely on getting their pensions earlier, as do the widows and widowers of servicemen and servicewomen who are killed early in their careers.
	Those groups, and those on the war pension scheme and the armed forces compensation scheme, will experience a greater diminution of the relative value of their pension over a greater period. Because of the switch to CPI, a 40-year-old squadron leader will lose £300,000 by the age of 85, which is not right. We should not be telling those who have risked their lives for this country that they must suffer a financial loss on such a scale for the sake of reducing the deficit as quickly as possible. As we heard earlier, the deficit is temporary, but the changes to the pensions of members of our armed forces and of other public sector workers will be permanent-the year-on-year reduction in their pensions will continue long after the structural deficit has been reduced.
	I oppose in principle the switch to CPI from RPI, and I am unconvinced by the Government's argument that the former is a better measure. The Government need to postpone that change and to rethink their policy for all public sector workers, but members of our armed forces are a special case. They have served their country, often making huge sacrifices. That also applies to the wider families of personnel. The military service of personnel means that it is likely that they have been away from their families for long periods. We talk about the right to family life in the House when we talk about ourselves, but serving personnel should also have that right. The families of personnel worry every day about the injury or death in service of their loved one, waiting for that phone call or that message, which must be the most awful way to live.
	Cutting the pensions of members of the armed services is not the way to reduce the structural deficit. I believe that the deficit can be reduced by greater investment, and a solid strategy for growth over time in a society in which everyone who is able to work does so, and in which we support those who cannot. I urge the Government to review that aspect of their pension policy and to abandon their short-term thinking on the economy, so that members of the armed forces and their families do not pay the price for the banking crisis, in which they had no part.
	As the general secretary of the Forces Pension Society, Major-General John Moore-Bick, says, the armed forces pension is "the bedrock of trust" on which members of our forces rely. They know that they or their families will be taken care of in the event of death or wounding, and they can trust that they will have a decent life after active service. We alter that bedrock of trust at our peril, and to our shame.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. There are now only 20 minutes left for remaining Back-Bench contributions, and several Members still seek to catch my eye. Members are perfectly capable of doing the arithmetic for themselves, but I appeal to them to help each other.

Bob Stewart: I will be as quick as I can. I love the idea of a military covenant. Of course our armed forces are a special case. They are a martial profession: people who join them do not do so to join a nursery school; they know they are going to take risks and they know they may lose their lives. As we know, they are in a unique profession, so we have to deal with them uniquely. That is why we must look after them. I repeat: we must look after them.
	The military covenant is a work in progress. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who is no longer in his place, and others who say that it is the idea of the covenant that counts rather than law. We feel strongly that the tri-service military covenant being looked at now, as work in progress, could get better. I feel that the military covenant comprises three crucial aspects, which I will quickly run through.

Kevan Jones: What the Defence Secretary said this afternoon, which was also said in recent proceedings on the Armed Forces Bill, is that a document called "the armed forces covenant" is being worked on now and will be produced later this spring. If that is the case, and the Prime Minister is clear that the covenant should be written into law, why is it not part of the Armed Forces Bill? When an amendment was proposed last week to enshrine the covenant in law, why did the hon. Gentleman's party vote against it?

Bob Stewart: The answer is I do not know, but I will continue and I will be quick.
	What is crucial to whatever we call the military covenant is how we respect our soldiers when they are killed. As a boy, I remember watching my father's battalion come back. He was the only officer who had not been killed and I remember watching the bodies come off the back of an aircraft at RAF Khormaksar in Aden. We have come a long way since then, and we must respect people properly. Secondly, the families must be looked after properly. When someone dies in the service of our country, we have a duty as a Government to look after those families for the rest of their lives. And my third point is that we have a duty to look after those who are hurt badly for the rest of their lives, too.
	I am happy that the military covenant is going to be part of the Armed Forces Bill. I like the idea of having a report every year. I commend the idea of the Queen's regulations. When I was serving, they were my bible when it came to dealing with my soldiers and how I should behave. Perhaps the tri-service military covenant will in due course become part of the Queen's regulations.
	Members on both sides of the House must try to do whatever we can in these parlous economic times to look after our soldiers so that we will remember them.

Nick Smith: There have been some excellent and thoughtful contributions to the debate. I am pleased that the Royal Welsh Regiment has been given the freedom of the borough in Blaenau Gwent this weekend.
	Last week, I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on the Government's proposed changes to armed forces pensions. I have also tabled early-day motion 1367, which is now supported by 118 MPs from all parties. I welcome today's opportunity to raise the issue of the military covenant.
	For service personnel and veterans in my constituency, pensions are a key component of the military covenant. Unfortunately, they do not believe that a permanent move from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index in calculating pension increases is fair, and neither do I. This change will slash the lifetime income of disabled servicemen wounded on active service. They have been targets of the Taliban and others; they should not be targets in their retirement.
	I am proud of Wales's contribution to Britain's defence; it has been long and distinguished. The Welsh Assembly has an admirable record in providing for our armed forces. That is why armed forces personnel now get special help through the Assembly's homebuy scheme. It is good that the Welsh Assembly goes that bit further for our armed forces. That, I believe, is in contrast to the Government's policy on pensions for the armed services.
	As my right hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary pointed out, the Opposition accept the need for pay restraint in public sector pay and pensions in the current economic circumstances. However, a permanent move to uprating pensions every year in line with CPI rather than RPI does not recognise the unique condition of military service and retirement. It will, for example, mean that those invalided out, and widows who lose their partner at a relatively young age, will lose out-and big time.
	The impact of the Government proposals on pensions uprating are stark and startling. For example, a disabled, double amputee, 28-year-old corporal would lose £587,000 by the age of 70. I do not believe that is fair, given the sacrifices made by our armed services and servicemen and servicewomen. Lyndon Moore, the secretary of the Nantyglo British Legion in Blaenau Gwent, supports me in standing up for servicemen, who, he feels, have been let down by the Government in their hour of need. I applaud the coverage of this matter in  The Times and in the Pensions Fit for Heroes campaign of the  Daily Mirror in recent weeks.
	The Government have acknowledged that the e-mail sackings were a dreadful mistake, and the Defence Secretary's apology yesterday was a full one. However, let us reflect on how it must feel to have one's long-term national service terminated by e-mail, especially when one has served the country with distinction. The Government must sharpen up their act so that that dreadful mistake does not happen again.
	I hope that in the short time left before the Budget, the Defence Secretary will make the case to the Chancellor for a rethink on armed services pensions uprating. We need an informed discussion on how we devise CPI and RPI. The International Association for Official Statistics has said that there is a risk of loss of public faith in official data. The public are sceptical about a measure such as CPI, which excludes housing costs. Service pensioners know that housing costs are a long-term element in their monthly outgoings, particularly for invalids and war widows. That is why CPI increases are so problematic for them, and that should be emphasised today.
	Service personnel should be assured that the change in pensions uprating from RPI to CPI will be as brief as possible. Surely the Minister does not want to penalise service families for ever and a day. If the Government change their mind, it will be an important boost to service morale and will ensure that the military covenant is credible. Importantly, it is the right thing to do.

Caroline Dinenage: I pay tribute to the fantastic contributions that we have heard in the House today. In comparison, my speech will probably sound quite parochial, as I speak as a member of a forces family: my husband is a Royal Navy officer, so perhaps I should declare an interest as I am one of the people under discussion.
	We have heard comments about political point scoring and making promises that we cannot keep, and those are the two issues on which I want to focus. The armed forces is not a homogenous mass or fighting machine, but soldiers, sailors, airmen, wives, husbands, kids, mothers and fathers. We are asking people not just to lay down their own lives but to lay down the lives of those whom they love most in the world, to protect our country and its interests. We must remember, every day in this Chamber, that those are the decisions that we are making.
	I fully endorse the renaming of the military covenant as an armed forces covenant. The many Navy members of my constituency-it is a military constituency-have often felt that "the military covenant" is an Army-centric term, and they like the fact that the Navy and RAF are included in the rebranding of the name.
	I want to reinforce the point made by some of my hon. Friends this afternoon that it is missing the point and the sentiment behind the covenant to talk about enshrining it in law. Forces families have heard it all before- [Interruption.] Hon. Members can chunter all they like, but I can talk only from personal experience. Successive Governments have promised to take care of the armed forces and failed to deliver.
	Forces families do not want special treatment. They just want a level playing field; they want the same treatment as everybody else and the same opportunities as non-service families. Sadly, forces families are no strangers to having their hopes raised and then dashed. For example, MODern Housing Solutions offered itself as a revolution in delivering maintenance and repairs for forces accommodation. Everybody in married forces was very excited about that, but it failed to deliver its promises.
	When I was newly wed to a naval officer, I was told by the wife of a more senior officer that the only thing I could guarantee in my life as a Navy wife was that the day my husband told me he would be home from sea is the only day he would not be home. That sums up the situation. Such changes of plan are unavoidable of course, but the MOD must work on its communication skills. Families can often be seen as a bit of a nuisance, and they are often the last to find out when their loved ones will be home.

David Simpson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Dinenage: I would love to give way, but I will not do so as I am also thinking about other Members who wish to contribute.
	An unhappy family makes an unhappy service person. We need to rebuild the trust of our armed forces, and if we make a promise we must stick to it. Making promises that are achievable and then exceeding expectations is far better than seeking to enshrine things in law.
	The UK's armed forces have been working at a sustained rate for decades. Whitehall is lined with statues commemorating the valour of servicemen and women, but what would be a far more fitting commemoration in their honour is a tangible covenant that can respond to the changing needs of our armed forces and that keeps its promises to them and makes them feel safer abroad and more valued at home.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will try to be brief by asking the Minister to answer the questions of others, not points raised by me.
	The director general of the Royal British Legion, Chris Simpkins, said:
	"We're seeing various allowances paid to the armed forces being reduced...If we then see that the Government isn't prepared to give a legal commitment to an armed forces covenant I feel that may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back and will have a very harmful impact on morale."
	In case there is any doubt, he talked previously about
	"the need to define and enshrine in law a set of principles in a military covenant."
	Let me put some points made by serving armed forces families. J. Winfield of Nottingham says:
	"Once again a new Government have got into power on the back of broken promises. For those of us in the military, we have seen a cut in take-home pay (not a pay freeze), an attack on our pension scheme (against the charter) and basically a complete betrayal by this Government. When the economic climate improves they need not worry about compulsory redundancies as experienced personnel will be leaving in droves. But let us remember 'we are all in this together'."
	Hilary Adams of London says:
	"I'm constantly amazed that anyone in the Army is surprised when they get dumped on by Government. Haven't you people realised you're nothing more than cannon fodder? They made a big PR issue of upping other perks to soldiers when they came into power. It should surely have been obvious that they would pay for that by taking it away from you elsewhere!"
	Let me conclude by quoting some comments I have taken off one of the armed forces sites. As the Government Front-Bench team will know, these sites can use fruity language, so I have edited the comments.
	"How many of you are actually aware that as we speak, the Government are to steal from each and every one of you who have served your country and earned your pension tens of thousands of pounds because they are to change the way the annual increase is worked out?...I just like thousands of other soldiers, sailors and airmen have done my time plus some more and now they have decided to change the goal posts. I stayed in and I am still in because of the pension, not because I like being institutionalised...For me integrity is important; if you promise something to a person, you keep that promise and give it to them. The next person to come along does not necessarily have to get the same deal, this is the way life is. I was promised something, and I want it in the same form I had become used to expecting I would receive it. I honoured my side of the agreement, will they"-
	he is referring to the Government Front-Bench team-
	"honour theirs? I doubt it."
	He said:
	"I shall be next year, aged 43, forced into possible unemployment because the option to remain serving isn't there for me like many others. Perhaps if enough of us actually give a hoot, and took action he"-
	the Prime Minister-
	"may have second thoughts. Wake up, people, if you are entitled to an Armed Forces pension you are going to lose tens of thousands of pounds over your lifetime. What really annoys me is that it seems many of you either don't know this is going to happen"-
	speaking to his other colleagues-
	"or don't give a damn. Please start to take action now before it's too late. We are getting royally bent over and"-
	I leave the rest to the imagination of the House.
	If the Government do not honour that covenant given on the Ark Royal, what will they do? Servicemen and their families are asking the House to honour the covenant. That is what the debate is about.

Penny Mordaunt: I declare an interest as I am attached to Royal Navy Reserve, King Alfred, Portsmouth.
	I want to make three points. First, many Members have pointed out that the covenant and defence are not the turf of one political party or another; they are far too important, and must be beyond political gain. Those of us in the Chamber today, and those of us who speak regularly on these issues, must work with our parliamentary colleagues to build understanding and interest in the contribution our armed forces make not just to security but to our entire way of life.
	We need deeper understanding of the challenges that our armed forces and their families face in doing their duty, and I am pleased to announce that this year, for the first time, we will be holding a Trafalgar night in the House of Commons to showcase the contribution the Royal Navy makes to our way of life. I am delighted that the shadow Secretary of State has agreed to co-host that event with me. It shows how we can build depth and breadth in our colleagues' knowledge of defence and related matters.
	Secondly, I repeat a point made by the Secretary of State. The covenant must be about actions, not just about words. We judge our service personnel in a binary way. Did we win? Did we secure our objectives? Our armed forces invariably do so. As politicians we do not have the same reputation. Given the catalogue of anecdotes about the failures of previous Governments, it is unsurprising that we face a sceptical audience in the armed services and their families.
	The debate has been about words-about legal status-but our focus beyond today must be on action and results. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his ministerial team; they have done a lot in a short time on operational allowances, mental health services, rest and recreation and education, but the covenant is about much more than welfare issues, which leads me to my third and final point.
	The covenant is just as much about our industrial strategy, the size of the defence budget and the voice of the military in future defence reviews as it is about welfare issues. In future months, I shall be arguing not just for service pensions to be linked to the retail prices index, for medals for submariners and the Arctic convoy, for damp-coursing in naval housing and additional allowances for those who search for improvised explosive devices, as well as for those who dispose of them, but also for a larger defence budget in future years, support for exporting Royal Navy-designed ships and for military representation on the secretariat of the National Security Council. Why? Because if the armed forces covenant is to be realised, it requires funds. It requires that we make the right procurement decisions and that we have a Parliament that listens to and learns from the concerns and day to day issues of service personnel.
	In that sense, the subject of the debate is a decoy. Despite wonderful contributions, it is a piece of theatre. We know that the military covenant will be enshrined in law, but it will be the subsequent actions of the House on the broader, more fundamental issues that ultimately decide whether the covenant is worth the paper it is written on. I urge the shadow Secretary of State to focus on that in future Opposition day debates.

Gisela Stuart: I shall make three quick observations. If the covenant is about anything, it must be about human resources and how we deal with people. First, will the Minister look at the composition of the Defence Board? If that was the board of a large international company, it would include human resources representatives. It does not, other than a human resources representative of one of the outside companies.
	Secondly, the defence cuts go to 17,000 service personnel and 25,000 civilian personnel. Will the Minister ensure that we do not end up making the military, which will be on higher wage rates, perform functions that cheaper civilian personnel had performed, and that the proper resources are made available? Thirdly, will he consider whether, if the budget is not increased, he will be able to withdraw British troops from Germany in 2020? Will he bear in mind that military personnel deserve some stability in their life, and that making promises that he cannot keep is not a good idea?

Gemma Doyle: We have had an excellent debate this afternoon, including the speeches that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). We called for the debate today to enable Members to hold the Government to account for the promises that they made to our service personnel. The Government said that the military covenant is shattered, but they have failed to offer a clear plan to strengthen it, and they have broken their promise to write the covenant into law.
	Numerous Members paid tribute today to our armed forces and they are right to do so. None did so more movingly than my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby), who paid tribute to his father. Our servicemen and women do difficult and dangerous work all over the world and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for the sacrifices that they make to safeguard our liberty. We must not forget our armed forces families, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) reminded us. Theirs is a huge sacrifice too, having their husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters spend many months away from home risking their lives. That puts a great strain on families, but their support is priceless. We owe them our sincere thanks, but we also owe them fair treatment.
	There was great progress on support for our armed forces under the previous Government. We delivered a cross-Government approach to forces' welfare. The Service Personnel Command Paper set out improved access to housing schemes and health care, free access to further and higher education for service leavers with six years' service, and extended travel concessions for veterans and for those seriously injured. We proposed strengthening the military covenant by enshrining the rights of our service personnel, their families and veterans in law through an armed forces charter. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) explained why that measure is so important.

Christopher Pincher: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Gemma Doyle: I am happy to give way, but I may be able to do so only once.

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. It has been a pleasure to serve with her on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and now on the Bill Committee. She mentioned enshrining the covenant in law, but she heard the evidence of General Mans, who told the Committee on 8 February 2011:
	"I don't think there is a requirement to set down standards".
	In the same Committee sitting she heard the evidence of Admiral Montgomery, who said:
	"I have detected no appetite for legally enforceable measures within this covenant, none whatsoever."
	Why are those gentlemen wrong and why is she right?

Gemma Doyle: Indeed, it has been a pleasure to serve with the hon. Gentleman on that Bill Committee. As he and I have already discussed, there has been some confusion over two separate issues. One is about a highly prescriptive covenant being written into law, and the other is about enshrining the covenant into law at all, which the Armed Forces Bill does not do, but which his own Prime Minister has said he wants to do.
	That takes me neatly to the main thrust of today's debate-the Government's approach to our armed forces and to the military covenant. In opposition the Conservatives declared that the covenant was "shattered" and they promised to rebuild it. That does not fit with the coalition Government's record of action since they have been in office. Last week, on 10 February, a spokesperson for the RAF Families Federation, in evidence to the Armed Forces Bill Committee, said:
	"At the moment, there is a real feeling within the armed forces that they are being battered from all sides."
	The Government must pause and reflect on those comments.
	The hon. and gallant Members for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and for Newark (Patrick Mercer) spoke about their own service experiences. They both said that they do not know and they do not really care whether the armed forces covenant is enshrined in law. I entirely respect that position, and I entirely respect their service. My concern is that the Prime Minister promised that the military covenant will be enshrined in law, and that the Armed Forces Bill, as drafted, does not do that.
	The Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos made wide-ranging pledges on covenant issues, but we have heard little about how, in government, they will take those forward. The Government's plan to link public sector pension rises to the consumer prices index, rather than the retail prices index, means that inflation will hit service personnel and war widows hard, as my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) explained. That change is fundamentally unfair on the people who serve to defend our way of life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) noted, which is why we have suggested an alternative, fairer approach.
	What action have the Government taken on the covenant? The Prime Minister established a taskforce to seek out
	"low-cost, innovative policy options to help rebuild the military covenant".
	The Government have said that they will ensure that our brave soldiers will get the best, but can the Minister really look them in the eye and assure them that that will happen, given that the Government have said that they want it done on the cheap?
	As I have mentioned, Labour have proposed enshrining the rights of our armed forced in law. Last summer, it looked as though the Prime Minister had adopted our idea. He visited the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and promised her sailors that
	"Whether it's the schools you send your children to, whether it's the healthcare you expect, whether it's the fact that there should be a decent military ward for everyone who gets injured...I want all these things refreshed and renewed and written down in a new military covenant that's written into the law of the land."
	Fast-forward eight months and what a change we have: HMS Ark Royal has been consigned to the scrap heap and the Prime Minister's promise has not fared much better. The Government have not enshrined a military covenant in law, and nor do they propose to do so in the Armed Forces Bill. We have had much debate on this point in the Bill Committee, with Ministry of Defence officials tying themselves in knots, frankly, arguing both that the covenant should not be laid down in law and that the Bill will in fact enshrine it in law-it was quite a sight to behold. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who is responsible for veterans and is serving on the Committee, has finally admitted that the covenant will not be laid down in law.
	The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) raised the concerns of the Royal British Legion. Its e-mail to MPs today stated:
	"We do not understand why the Government is now claiming that the commitment to produce an 'Armed Forces Covenant report' is somehow the same thing as enshrining the military covenant in law. It is not the same thing at all."
	Neither the covenant, nor the principles by which we would understand it to operate, will be enshrined in law. The Government are not being honest with our armed forces. They promised a military covenant enshrined in law, but what is being offered is little more than fuzzy assurances and woolly platitudes. They should fulfil their promise, as our motion seeks to make them do, and ensure that they offer nothing less than the unshakable commitment and the cast-iron guarantee that our servicemen and women deserve.
	Furthermore, like service personnel and charities, we have concerns about the annual covenant report that the Government plan to introduce. It is too narrowly defined and lacks the independence from Government required to ensure that it is an effective tool for improving the lives of members of our armed forces. It is to be welcomed that the Secretary of State will lay a report before Parliament for debate, as the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned, but as it stands only health, education and housing are specifically cited as issues to be considered in that report. That is insufficient.
	Of course those issues are vital to service personnel, their families and veterans, but there are many other concerns that affect their daily lives. I visited Colchester garrison this week, along with other members of the Bill Committee, and the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) spoke with pride today about the 16 Air Assault Brigade currently serving in Afghanistan. The concerns raised with me on Monday were about cuts to allowances, cuts to pensions and the difficulties faced by service family members seeking employment. As things stand, the Secretary of State would not be obliged to report on how those issues affect our armed forces. I think that he should at the very least report on issues that fall within his remit.
	The Opposition have proposed that the scope of the covenant report should be expanded to include issues such as mental health care, pensions, benefits, employment and training. The Government have rejected our proposals in Committee in a clear indication that they want the Secretary of State to decide which issues should be reported to Parliament. I would like to address many other issues, but time does not permit me to do so.
	Today's debate has been an important opportunity to hold the Government to account on their approach to our service personnel, their families and veterans. Our brave servicemen and women would be right to expect a lot from this Government, given their pre-election rhetoric, but they are not being honest. They have U-turned on a pledge delivered personally by the Prime Minister to enshrine the military covenant in law. It is no wonder that the chairman of the Forces Pension Society has said:
	"I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the armed forces so quickly."
	Our brave servicemen and women, their families and our veterans deserve better.

Andrew Robathan: The British people and, indeed, a great many Members will have been puzzled by today's debate, because all parts of the House agree on the substance of the issues and on looking after the armed forces, and we have heard from both sides how much people care about armed forces personnel, their families, veterans, the injured, widows and so on. So what we have heard, I fear, is a synthetic debate about semantics-dancing on the head of a pin. We on the Government Benches are absolutely concerned about results, not about party political point-scoring.
	I shall turn my attention first, if I may, to the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby), who gave a very moving account of his father on D-day. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we all, of whatever age, owe a huge debt to those who fought in the second world war on D-day and on other occasions. I have to say, however, that I am sorry he thought that people who went off after D-day and voted Conservative were voting weirdly; I have always thought that it was a bit weird to vote Labour, but never mind. We agree also on defence expenditure, but if I may say so gently, we cannot spend money that we do not have, and that is why we have to cut the defence budget.
	My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) made, without doubt, the best joke of the day. He also spoke sensibly from experience, including recent operational experience, and I say to him, "Trust me. We will not forget the reserves." The reserves review will report this year to me.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) started calmly and asked to be non-political, but then I found that, rather sadly, she turned tribal and became rather party political. I do not doubt her sincerity, however, and I assure her that I and Her Majesty's Government similarly care deeply for the armed forces.
	My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) spoke from experience and, again, rather movingly, this time about the covenant manifested in Newark. I thank him for his contribution, and he is right: we must, indeed, look after our people in the armed forces.
	Turning to the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), I am sorry to say this, but "the Ark of the covenant" was without doubt the worst joke of the day. Again, however, I do not doubt her commitment to, and support for, the armed forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is a great supporter of the armed forces and, indeed, of the covenant, and he made a sensible and knowledgeable contribution.
	The hon. Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) spoke about pensions, and again I do not doubt their sincerity. We are deeply concerned about, and looking specifically at the issue of, widows and maimed personnel in terms of pensions. The hon. Lady referred to a 40-year-old squadron leader and how much his pension might be affected, but she should know that I have drawn a pension from the armed forces for more than 20 years, and although she may not think it, I have managed to earn a little on the way as a Member, so we need to be realistic about the issue: we cannot exempt everybody from the change to CPI from RPI. People who think we can are totally in denial about the state of the public finances, which the previous Government left to us. We have to clear up that mess, and we have no other duty than to do so before we deal with other matters.

Angela Smith: rose-

Nick Smith: rose-

Andrew Robathan: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, because she sat through the debate and did not get in.

Angela Smith: The Minister is being very generous. Is it not the case, however, that the current Government knew about the deficit before the election? On that premise, why did they make the promise that they made to the electorate?

Andrew Robathan: We did not appreciate quite what an awful state- [ Interruption. ] I could point the House to innumerable references to, "When we open the books, we will find out what things are like." We did not appreciate the awfulness. We certainly did not know that the MOD budget for the next 10 years was overspent by £38 billion. I am not sure what promise the hon. Lady is alleging that we are breaking, because I cannot see one.

Nick Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Robathan: Yes, but I will make this the last time.

Nick Smith: The Minister hinted that he might be able to make some progress on pensions for widows and for people who have suffered injury. Can he give us some more detail on that?

Andrew Robathan: I have had many discussions with representatives of the War Widows Association and the Forces Pension Society, and we are looking at particular cases and how we can perhaps take this forward. I cannot make any concrete commitment, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that should we make any progress or change, I will let him know.
	I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his contribution. He, too, has been in receipt of a pension for a few years-a bigger one than mine, but there we go.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), although not gallant herself, is married to a gallant officer. I am grateful for her contribution, in which she spoke from her experience of service family life. She is of course absolutely right: we have to look after the armed forces, and that is what we pledge to do.
	I was rather surprised when the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), for whom I have always had a bit of affection, started to quote from blogs. I think we all read blogs from time to time, but most of the stuff that is written there is not worth repeating.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Far from blogs, I also quoted Chris Simpkins of the Royal British Legion, who said:
	"The British public has shown it sees"
	the role of coroner
	"as vital in ensuring bereaved Service families can have confidence in the investigations of their loved ones' deaths. We believe it is fundamental to the inquest process and to the fulfilment of the Military Covenant".
	The Minister should not respond to the blogs but to the Royal British Legion.

Andrew Robathan: I will come to that if I have time at the end.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) might qualify as almost gallant in her role in the Royal Naval Reserve. I am grateful to her for what she said. She is absolutely right that this Government believe in action, not words-not spin, but results.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) made three swift points that seemed pretty reasonable. I would love to respond and wonder if she could write to me about them.
	I now turn to the Front-Bench contribution by the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy). I expect that he now regrets having called this debate, because he has not come out of it with any credit. Like the hon. Member for Ogmore, he quoted at length the Royal British Legion. I have here the Royal British Legion's initial comments on the proposed armed forces covenant, dated 21 January-not four weeks ago-in which it says that it broadly welcomes the proposals. I am afraid that one can quote selectively at any stage, and Labour Members are doing so.
	I am afraid that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) regurgitated the arguments that we have heard in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, and they had no more resonance. The Committee has made three visits-to the Nottingham reserves centre, to Colchester and to Headley Court-and I am disappointed that of the six Labour Members on the Committee, who make so much fuss about these things, three did not come on any of those visits.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Main Question accordingly put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 318.

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (TODAY)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.  15   ),
	That, at this day's sitting, (1) the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Adjournment of the House (Today) and (2) consideration of any Lords Messages that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.- (Sir George  Young .)
	 Question agreed to.

DEFERRED DIVISONS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A( 3 )),
	That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Adjournment of the House (Today).- (Mr  Heath .)
	 Question agreed to.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Lindsay Hoyle: A message has been received from the Lords on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Under the Order of the House of 15 February, any message from the Lords relating to the Bill may be considered forthwith, without any Question put. The text of the Lords insistence on amendments 1 and 8, and reasons, is available in the Vote Office as Bill 152. A paper is also available in the Vote Office setting out the motion, which I now call on the Minister to move.
	 Lords message considered forthwith (Programme Order, 15 February).

Clause 1
	 — 
	Referendum on the alternative vote system

Mark Harper: I beg to move that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 1 and 8, but proposes amendment (a) in lieu.
	Yesterday the House debated whether to oppose including in the Bill Lord Rooker's amendments specifying that if less than 40% of the electorate vote in the referendum the result should not be binding. We have accepted an amendment in lieu. We do not accept that there should be a threshold in the referendum, and the amendment does not propose one. It simply states that the Electoral Commission must publish information about the turnout. If we were simply to oppose Lord Rooker's threshold amendment again without this amendment, and were their Lordships to reject our position, the rules on double insistence would result in the loss of the Bill. We have tabled our amendment to avoid that eventuality.
	I explained in some detail yesterday why the Government disagreed with their lordships' proposal, both on principle and on the basis of the practical difficulties identified by both the Government and the Electoral Commission in giving it effect. I said then that I considered those arguments compelling, and the House agreed. When the motion to disagree was voted on, it was carried by 317 votes to 247, a majority of 70. That was on the back of a conclusive rejection of the proposals for a threshold made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on Report. I think that we made our view clear, and by a clear margin.

Kevin Brennan: I understand the Minister's point about the technical reasons for the Government's amendment, but does he not owe it to the House to explain what he considers to be the benefits of the amendment if we are to vote on it?

Mark Harper: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will give the details as I proceed with my speech. If he does not think that I have done so satisfactorily, he can intervene again. I should say at this point that, although I shall attempt to be generous in giving way, I also want to ensure that other Members have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, so I may not be quite as generous as I was yesterday.

William Cash: Having studied the amendment, I trust that the Minister will not spend another 25 to 30 minutes going through all the stuff about the Electoral Commission. We want to get down to the real stuff.

Mark Harper: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will make some progress.
	The House of Lords has now asked us to consider the matter again, after voting to reinstate the original provisions. It is only right, therefore, that I briefly report the reasons that it gave for doing so, and explain why I do not believe that those reasons are sufficient to change the clearly expressed view of the House of Commons. First, though, let me deal briefly with the suggestion made by the Lords that it was necessary for this House to consider the issue again because we had not given it proper scrutiny.
	The House of Commons has debated the issue of thresholds on a number of occasions, and has voted conclusively against the principle twice. We specifically considered the merit of Lord Rooker's proposal. During the Lords debate, Lord Falconer suggested that I had misrepresented it, but I thought that I had made myself clear when I said that his amendment sought to make the referendum result indicative should turnout fall below 40%, rather than ruling out implementing the result altogether. My point was that this proposal is a threshold nevertheless, and I make no apology for making the case against it yesterday.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister has just referred to two occasions on which the House has debated thresholds. Both times, the amendments under discussion had been tabled by me. I believe that thresholds are appropriate in the context of such matters as referendums. However, I accept that my amendments were defeated by the House of Commons, and that the will of the House of Commons must prevail. The House of Lords should accept that too.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I am sure that her clarion call will be heard at the other end of the building.
	This morning Lord Wallace made the important point that when a referendum poses a yes/no question, a turnout threshold effectively makes every abstention a no vote. A number of noble Lords supporting Lord Rooker's amendment suggested that that would not be the case with the kind of threshold that he had proposed. Let me make clear that it would. Under his amendment, abstentions would still mean that a yes vote might not be upheld. The amendment would still create an incentive for those who favour a no vote to stay at home. Those who favour a no vote might well think that abstaining could create a low enough turnout to see off a yes vote.

Angus MacNeil: Is not one of the problems with their lordships' threshold that it invalidates only one of the options-the alternative vote system? If the referendum turnout was under the threshold, both the first-past-the-post and AV options should, in fairness, be invalidated-if indeed we accept the principle of a threshold, which we should not. If we do accept it, either result should be invalidated in such circumstances.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because the threshold sets up an incentive for one side to campaign for people to stay at home. As democrats, we should all be arguing for people to turn out to vote, be it yes or no. That should apply no matter what side of the argument we are on, and Government Members have been very frank about the fact that we will be campaigning on different sides.

Kevin Brennan: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Ruane: Only once.

Mark Harper: Once was enough. Let me make some progress.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Brennan, the Minister has given way once and he has said that he is not going to give way again.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	A related point made in the other place was the argument that Lord Rooker's threshold was appropriate because the question being decided in the referendum was constitutionally significant. My argument is that we are having the referendum because this is an important issue-it is about how we are elected. It is not right that we make that decision, because the people should decide how Members are elected to this House.

Geoffrey Cox: What is meant by "the people"? Is there any size of turnout that the Minister would regard as not really constituting a verdict of the British people? Is it not sensible for a fundamental constitutional and political change such as this to have a minimum turnout threshold to warrant and justify it?

Mark Harper: Our system does not have a minimum turnout threshold for elections and we do not have a tradition of thresholds for the 10 referendums that have been held in this country. Only one of those referendums had a turnout threshold and its effect was to thwart the clearly expressed will of the people. It may have been something I agreed with, but it meant that that issue festered for another decade.

Kevin Brennan: rose-

Mark Harper: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I am going to make some progress.
	There are some perverse mathematical effects of such a barrier. As I said yesterday, this Lords amendment provides that if 39% of the electorate turned out the result would not be binding, even if 75% of those voting were in favour of change, whereas if 41% of people turned out the result would be binding, even if far fewer people actually voted in favour of the proposal. In the first scenario, 30% of the electorate might have voted for change but be denied it, whereas in the second only 21% might need to vote for AV to see it implemented. Why should that be the case? I have heard no arguments, either in this House or in the other place, to explain how that would be fair.

Kevin Brennan: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	I know that some Members favour this Lords amendment because this referendum is binding, but the Government have made it very clear that we want to offer the people the chance to make a decision. If they make that decision, it would not be right for the matter to come back to this House and for us to say, "We have heard what you said and we are going to ignore it." That would not be right, however much we might not like what the people have told us. We accept that when we stand for election and we should accept it in a referendum.

Kevin Brennan: rose-

Mark Harper: I am not going to give way.
	The key arguments against the threshold remain as compelling as ever. I have addressed some of the points made by their lordships during their debate today. Although they are entitled to ask us to consider the matter again, I do not believe that the points they raised change the balance of argument.

Bernard Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend not recognise that there is a difference between an ordinary election and constitutional change? A common feature of many constitutions is having thresholds for constitutional change. Just because we have an unwritten constitution, that does not mean that we are absolved of any responsibility to show that there is a reasonable threshold for constitutional change. If there were only a 10% turnout in London, where there are no forthcoming local elections, would that really constitute a valid result?

Mark Harper: I have two points to make. First, on my hon. Friend's last point, we are talking about a national referendum and the important thing is to get people to vote across the whole of the United Kingdom. Secondly, we do not have a tradition in this country of thresholds for referendums either. Ten referendums have been held and only in the devolution referendum in the 1970s was a threshold inserted-the rest of the referendums had no such provision. He is being too pessimistic, because people will engage with this question. However, it would be wrong to thwart a clear decision-a yes vote-on the basis of the sort of mathematical formula that I have just set out. It could have quite perverse results and give an incentive for people to stay at home.

James Gray: rose -

Kevin Brennan: rose -

Mark Harper: I am just going to deal with the point the hon. Gentleman raised earlier. I am asking hon. Members on both sides of the House to disagree with amendments 1 and 8. In their place, we have proposed an amendment in lieu, which provides:
	"Following the referendum, the Electoral Commission must-
	(a) publish the most accurate estimate that it is reasonably possible to make of the turnout in each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland".
	Information on turnout is useful and important; a turnout threshold is not.

Chris Bryant: As I said yesterday-I know that I do not carry the whole House with this first sentence, but perhaps I will carry more of it later-I support the alternative vote and will be voting yes in the referendum. However, the way in which the Deputy Prime Minister has conducted this piece of legislation, or rather the way in which he has not conducted it, is steadily putting me off the idea. It is an enormous shame that he does not have the courage to be in the Chamber this evening even to represent his own view. I say to Liberal Democrat friends who would like this legislation to pass, that it would be a good idea to progress in a slightly different way.
	There have been many misunderstandings about the nature of the threshold that Lord Rooker suggests should be introduced, which their lordships agreed to by a significant majority earlier today. Some think that the threshold would act in a way that other thresholds have acted elsewhere-in other words, that it would make it impossible for the Government then to bring forward the alternative vote. That is expressly not what it does and I am afraid that the Minister rather elided his interpretation of the Rooker amendment yesterday evening. It is absolutely clear. As Lord Rooker said in this afternoon's debate in the other place, "I have said all along that if the turnout was less than 40%, the House could decide to implement AV and I would not argue with that."
	The simple point that we are making is that because this is not a fatal, kill-all threshold, but would mean that Parliament would have to think again, it puts the decision in the right and proper place. Everyone who supports the alternative vote has some version of a threshold in their mind, whether it is 1%, 5% or 10%.

Paul Farrelly: rose -

Angus MacNeil: rose-

Chris Bryant: I will give way in a moment. Of course we do not expect there to be only 10% or 15% voting in elections and we do not expect that to be the threshold in elections later this year, but there will be a significant difference between the turnout in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I say to Government Members who are concerned about how English people view the way in which the House transacts its business that if the votes of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland end up effectively rigging the vote across the whole United Kingdom because they are having other, substantial, national elections on the same day, I think that will bring the decision into disrepute, and that is a problem.

Paul Farrelly: Just before the Minister summarily sat down, he said that if there were a clear decision, it would be wrong to thwart it in this way, but he did not define what he meant by a clear decision. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to give the House a definition?

Chris Bryant: I am afraid that I have been asking the Minister to provide clear definitions and clarity for some time but we certainly did not get much of that yesterday. My point is fairly simple. The amendment that has come from their lordships would not kill off the decision that might come through if fewer than 40% of voters voted in the referendum in May, it simply means that Parliament would have to take cognisance of the decision, so it would be an advisory referendum rather than an implementing referendum.

David Winnick: Is it not the case that the amendment was originally carried by one vote in the Lords and was today carried by a majority of 62, including 27 Conservatives? Does not that show the strength of feeling in the Lords about the necessity for this modification in the Bill?

Chris Bryant: I believe my hon. Friend was in the Chamber yesterday when we had an interesting moment. The Minister effectively advanced his own threshold argument, which was that winning by only one vote in the House of Lords somehow did not really matter. I think their lordships listened to what he said and decided that they would introduce a threshold of their own-a 60-vote majority-which they surpassed quite easily. I am grateful to the Minister for helping us win more significantly in the House of Lords earlier today. I hope that his contribution this evening will do that again.

Ian Murray: One of the key arguments being made is that AV would mean that all Members of the House would have 50% of the vote, or close to it, and therefore have legitimacy. Does it not follow that if there is a miserly turnout in the referendum, it will not have legitimacy and the matter should come back to the House for us to debate whether the result should stand?

Chris Bryant: It is a particular irony for those who advocate the alternative vote, as I do, which in the majority of situations will mean that an MP will have secured 50% of the vote-

Alan Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I will in a moment. I am still dealing with this question. I know that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is going to make a silly point, and I will let him make it in a couple of moments.
	It is suggested that we are advancing a system that guarantees that the vast majority of MPs will have 50% of the vote-some of us already achieve that-but then it is said that that provision should be delivered on perhaps a 30% or 35% vote.

Dan Rogerson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Beith: rose-

Chris Bryant: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) first, because he asked first.

Alan Beith: I am grateful. If the hon. Gentleman loses the vote in the Commons tonight, does he think the unelected House is then morally entitled to defy the expressed will of this House?

Chris Bryant: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have advocated an elected House of Lords for a very long time, and that is still my position. However, many people, including himself when he was on the Opposition Benches, have argued that the sagacity and wisdom of people down the other end of the building should sometimes be listened to. Whatever system we end up with for the two Chambers, I would simply say that as in most other countries in Europe that have a parliamentary system, there will be a second Chamber with a particular concern for constitutional matters.
	If the Bill had made progress as the result of pre-legislative scrutiny, with a Joint Committee considering all of its proposals, or for that matter if there had been two separate Bills, one on the AV referendum and another on parliamentary constituencies, I would agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman. However, I believe that the Government have abused every single constitutional convention in driving the Bill forward, so I am afraid I am not with him on this occasion.

Angus MacNeil: rose-

Chris Bryant: And now for the hon. Gentleman.

Angus MacNeil: Surely if a threshold is in place, it is an incentive not to participate. I hope that the Labour Front Benchers do not want to create such an incentive. Surely it is those who care who will vote. Those who are happy either way will probably not vote and will accept whatever those who care deliver. If the threshold that the hon. Gentleman wants were not reached, would that not invalidate both first past the post and AV, not just one of them?

Chris Bryant: I knew the hon. Gentleman was going to make a silly point, because he made the same silly point earlier. We have to have elections to this House, and they will either be under the first-past-the-post system or, if the referendum question is carried, under AV. I therefore do not accept his argument. I also point out to him that I believe there will be very different turnouts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from that in England. That is why I have never supported holding the referendum on the same day as other elections there.

Kevin Brennan: To return to the amendment in lieu that the Minister has proposed, does my hon. Friend agree that it effectively constitutes a direct insult to the other House, first because of its puerile nature and the fact that it is totally unrelated to the amendments from the other place, and secondly because of the Minister's cursory explanation of it, which gave the game away?

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is, as always, spot on, and I will come to the Government amendment in lieu after I have made one significant point. Implementing referendums are fundamentally dangerous. All too often in other democracies, such referendums have been a way of circumventing the process of parliamentary democracy. That is a particularly dangerous way of doing business under coalition Governments. I do not believe that implementing referendums is a good idea, except for when there is a settled constitutional view that has been established on the basis of consensus, which is certainly not the situation with the AV referendum.
	Everybody has a threshold in their own mind, but the truth is that the Government are proceeding as they are because they know perfectly well that if they were to introduce a stand-alone Bill to introduce the alternative vote, it would not be carried in the House or in the House of Lords. That is the profound danger with the way in which the Government are trying to proceed.

Jack Straw: I apologise that I was not here at the commencement of these proceedings-I got caught short in the gymnasium.
	I put it to my hon. Friend that it scarcely lies in the mouths of the Conservatives to challenge the authority of the other place when they were happy to see that authority used to the greatest extent on these provisions just before the election when they vetoed their inclusion from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In addition, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives so respect the House of Lords that they have decided to pack it with pliant Members so that they can start getting better results in votes. I praise those Members of the House of Lords, including Baroness Trumpington, who has never voted against the Conservative Whip, and who is notwithstanding a very splendid woman, who today decided to vote for the amendment in the name of Lord Rooker.
	I support the alternative vote, but to me it is an even more important principle that the views of the British people, completely and definitively established, are enacted. That is why Lord Rooker's threshold is appropriate.
	Finally, the Minister's amendment in lieu has absolutely no value. It would mean merely that the process that is already adopted by the Electoral Commission would be implemented. He knows that it is a chimera-the smile without the Cheshire cat.

William Cash: I entirely endorse the final remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)-the Government amendment in lieu is a load of rubbish.
	It is important to get across what is really going on here. In the context of the referendum, the Conservative party is being led like a lamb to the slaughter. The reality is that the referendum is entirely to do with Liberal party aspirations as expressed in the coalition agreement. I have here an extract from the right hon. Member for Deauville- [ Laughter. ] I meant the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who might as well have come from Deauville. He quotes the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), as saying:
	"Our historic mission is to create a British Liberal party whose influence will be embedded in our politics through a reformed voting system - a Liberal party capable of dealing with both other parties."
	The reality, therefore, is that what lies at the heart of this debate is not the rubbish that we have heard from the Minister on the Electoral Commission, but the glue that holds the coalition together.
	I pay tribute to the noble Lord Rooker and the other Lords and Ladies who made such magnificent speeches this morning, which I had the privilege to witness. They are right that the Bill provides for a binding referendum, and that the essence of the argument is that the Bill is a constitutional issue, because it proposes to change our constitution in a fundamental way for the first time.
	I believe that 40% is a reasonable test. It is accepted by all the constitutional authorities-including, ironically, Vernon Bogdanor, who was the Prime Minister's own tutor. This threshold of 40%, which has come down to us in an amendment from the House of Lords, is reasonable and fair with respect to the electorate as a whole. We are being asked to reject that provision. I am no longer going down the route of my original proposal, which one of their Lordships referred to as "the fatal amendment". I propose, for all the reasons that have been so ably put forward this evening, to follow what the House of Lords said.
	There is no reference to thresholds in this coalition agreement-none whatever. None of the political parties expressed any genuine manifesto commitment to the alternative vote and no commitment whatever to the threshold. Given that the Bill purports to provide for a fair electoral system with preference votes, one would have thought that its proponents would at least have the decency and common sense to give the electorate a fair deal- [Interruption.] Yes, and the courage, as one of my hon. Friends says. I thought that the Liberal Democrats believed in fairness and constitutional propriety, but I was mightily mistaken.

Bernard Jenkin: Can we dispense with this argument that any kind of threshold somehow provides an incentive for the no campaign to campaign for people to stay at home? The truth is that this is simply a test of whether there are enough people motivated in favour of change to justify it. If enough people are not prepared to vote for change, why should it take place? That seems to me to provide the reason why a threshold should exist for every referendum. Incidentally, when the Conservatives were in opposition, we voted for a threshold in every referendum.

William Cash: I agree with my hon. Friend and point out that no European country other than France does not have a threshold. Over the generations, we in this House have always regarded constitutional matters as of such fundamental importance as to require a free vote and to rule out the sort of programming and guillotining that we are seeing here. Yesterday, I had a mere two minutes in which to express the arguments on my amendment.
	I heartily dislike this Bill and I believe that its effect will be exceedingly damaging to the Conservative party and exceedingly damaging to our national interest. I strongly urge my hon. Friends to vote for the threshold arrangements proposed by the noble Lords. I believe that doing so would be in the interests of the Conservative party, its individual members and its councillors who are soon coming up for local elections, as well as in the national interest of the electorate as a whole.
	Other Members wish to speak, so I shall bring my remarks immediately to an end. The Government should be careful about what they wish for because it might come true.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who intervened a few moments ago, is of course absolutely right. The Conservatives have voted for thresholds in referendums whenever they felt it suited them and whenever they thought it would be to the disadvantage of a Labour Government. Indeed, Scottish devolution was delayed by 20 years because the Conservative party voted for a threshold on the referendum on Scottish devolution in 1979.
	It is appropriate that this motion should stand in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats because this entire Bill is about the Liberal Democrats. Anybody who has the opportunity should read the Nuffield study, "The British General Election of 2010", which makes it absolutely clear in a masterly piece of research that the sticking-point on whether the Liberal Democrats would go into a coalition with the Conservatives was whether the referendum that we are debating this evening would be introduced by a coalition Government. What the Government are doing-I rarely agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), but he is absolutely right this evening-is rigging the British political system with this Bill. The Bill was introduced, and is being railroaded through, to placate 8% of the House of Commons; 92% of the House of Commons do not want it.

Angus MacNeil: rose -

Paul Farrelly: rose -

Gerald Kaufman: I will give way in a moment, but I want to proceed on this point.
	When I was shadow Home Secretary, I negotiated with the then Conservative Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, about a Representation of the People Bill-that is what Bills dealing with the political system and elections in this country used to be called- which he was introducing. The dog's breakfast that is before us this evening is a misrepresentation of the people Bill, based on an obligation to placate the self-interest of the third party in the House. There is no doubt whatever about that.

Angus MacNeil: rose-

Gerald Kaufman: I will give way in a moment, but I want to complete this segment of my argument, taking into account the limited time.
	This is a partisan Bill. All the Representation of the People Bills that went through the House of Commons, from when I first entered the House, were agreed between the Government and the Opposition-I negotiated with Leon Brittan even down to the threshold for retaining a deposit-but not now. The Conservatives do not want the Bill. We are dealing not with the question of whether we are for or against the alternative vote; we are dealing with the question of whether a fundamental aspect of our British political system should be decided not on its principles, or on whether it is appropriate and admirable for the country, but on whether it suits the interests of a minority party, which wants to go on having coalitions, as that is the only way in which its useless Members would be able to sit on the Government Front Bench.

Angus MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman referred to rigged referendums, but would a threshold not rig a referendum by blocking a change that the majority of those taking part wanted?

Gerald Kaufman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not necessarily agree with him.

Paul Farrelly: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) quoted not the Member for Deauville, or even Trouville, but the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws). Does my right hon. Friend recognise that those of us who are more sympathetic to AV have legitimate concerns about its operation in practice because of the behaviour of the Liberal Democrats since the general election. They talk of five more years of the coalition, but we cannot be sure that they will not direct their supporters to use their second preference against the Labour party, for instance. In those circumstances, is it not reasonable to have a threshold, so that we can be certain that the British people have expressed a clear opinion?

Gerald Kaufman: We do not know what the turnout will be on 5 May. What we do know, in my constituency, is that we will murder the Liberal Democrats in the local elections, whatever the threshold. My hon. Friend's point is relevant, because the issue is not whether one is for or against AV. The debate is not about that; it is about whether we seek to appease a small minority of the House of Commons by rigging our precious electoral system, which has served us well.

Stephen Williams: This is an extraordinary occasion in that the unelected House of Parliament is, with absolutely no sense of irony, telling the elected half of Parliament how to conduct a ballot. The simple principle is that in elections and referendums it is the people who turn up who decide the result, not the people who do not turn up.
	In my brief remarks last night I recalled many election results in Bristol-I am sure you would have found this very interesting, Madam Deputy Speaker, had you been in the Chair-when the turnout had fallen below 40%. I have since looked up a few more statistics. For the European Parliament elections in 2009, only 34% of the British public turned out to vote. I say in all candour to Conservative coalition colleagues that I do not recall any of them saying at the time that that was not a valid election result. In fact, I recall them saying that the Conservative party had won that election.

Christopher Chope: Is the hon. Gentleman not at all concerned that, having listened to the arguments he deployed last night, the Lords majority was 62 rather one?

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my Political and Constitutional Reform Committee colleague, for that intervention, but I think he can predict my answer. What disturbs me about the response from their Lordships last night is that it ignores the will of the elected House. Our fellow Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), got that balance exactly right.
	The Welsh Assembly election in 2003 had a turnout of only 38%. I ask my Labour friend, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is an ally in arguing for a yes vote should we have the referendum in Wales, does he really think the Government of Rhodri Morgan who were elected in 2003 had no validity because only 38% of his constituents turned out? Does the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) think the Labour administration of Manchester city council, elected on a 27% turnout in 2008, has no legitimacy whatever? That same question could be asked of Sheffield with 36%, or Leeds-a Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition-with 35.7%.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In general elections the turnout is normally 70% or more. Is it right that that 70% of people should have their voting system changed by fewer than 40%?

Stephen Williams: If we were at a different point in the electoral cycle, we could be having this referendum on the day of a general election. We may well have a referendum on future changes on the date of the next general election in May 2015. However, that is four and a half years away, so we are having the referendum rather sooner, and everyone who is conducting the arguments about this threshold knows that, other than in a general election, the turnout is likely to be lower than 40%. That is why I have quoted the statistics I have.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Williams: The hon. Gentleman has made a lot of interventions, and other Members wish to get in.
	When an election is over-you will recall the first general election I fought was against you, Madam Deputy Speaker-and the result is in, the people have spoken. As democrats, none of us says the people have spoken but with a caveat; we sit down and accept the result. On this occasion, I say that the voters should have the final word in a referendum-the voters who turn up to vote-and on this matter their elected representatives should have the final word.

David Winnick: I am not going to beat about the bush. I am not in favour of the change. I am not going to pretend I am and put forward various reasons why the Lords amendment should be accepted. If I had any doubts at the beginning-I must confess that at times I did consider the possibility of a change in the electoral system-the way this Government have gone about their business has certainly persuaded me to support the no campaign.
	An article in today's  Evening Standard by a former editor of  The Spectator makes a valid point about how little interest there is in changing the electoral system; there is very little enthusiasm for that. As I asked yesterday, where is the pressure? Where are the letters and e-mails? Where are the people coming to our surgeries and saying, "This is the most crucial issue of all"? It is important to bear in mind the fact that there would have been no possibility of such a referendum if the Conservatives had a working majority; indeed, they would be arguing the opposite of what the Minister was saying.
	I do not want to eat my words. On many occasions, when I was sitting on the Government Benches, I said that the view of the elected Chamber should prevail. I do not deny that I said it, and I cannot say that I have drastically changed my mind. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has made the point that the Conservatives were only too willing to allow the unelected Chamber to overturn the decision of the Commons when there was a Labour Government.
	I have no desire to eat my words, but on a major constitutional issue the Government should be willing to listen, even more so when we are talking about a voting system that has been in operation for a long time and there is so little evidence of a desire for change. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, the only reason why the measure is being introduced is the coalition. There is no other reason whatever. There is certainly no enthusiasm for it in the Conservative party, either on the Back or Front Benches.
	When the Lords last voted on the proposal the majority was only one, but today it was 62-including 27 Conservative Back Benchers and, in many respects more important, Cross Benchers. They do not have a particular party view, but it is understandable that they should be concerned that if there is to be a vote on a change to the electoral system there should be credibility in the turnout. The provision is not binding. The point has been made on a number of occasions: if turnout is less than 40%, it does not mean that there will not be another referendum. The Government and Parliament can reconsider the position. What if turnout is less than 30%? Will we really work on the assumption that that gives sufficient credibility and is sufficient justification for changing the electoral system?
	The Minister said that if there was a threshold, it would be an incentive for the no campaign. Surely it would be an incentive for the yes campaign. If the yes people are so keen on change, it is up to them to campaign as hard as possible to persuade the electorate of their case. The Government have put through most of the measures in the Bill. They should show some generosity and consideration for the strength of feeling. They should not be so obstinate. [Hon. Members: "Be nice."] There would be no harm at all in the Government showing a less obstinate spirit and recognising the strength of feeling both in this place and next door.
	If there was a free vote in the House of Commons, this measure would be overwhelmingly rejected.

Richard Shepherd: The Government give as their reason for disagreeing:
	"Because the outcome of the referendum should be determined by those who vote in it and should not depend on how many do not vote."
	I challenge that. I do not accept it. One of the reasons why I challenge the process is that we are under a guillotine. During the whole passage of the Bill we have been guillotined. Their lordships are part of Parliament and therefore used to be considered custodians of the constitution, so that we in our party passion might not force through something that altered the balance of the constitution. I oppose the motion for that reason.
	The Bill is a major constitutional change. No one has argued otherwise. It will change the voting system. We have almost universal suffrage. Everyone is entitled to vote. If they choose not to exercise-

Stephen Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Shepherd: I shall not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. We have so little time and others want to speak.
	We have universal suffrage so if a proposition is put to us, I shall take the older course of action, which the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) hinted at. Those who seek change from a settled position have the right to advocate it in a referendum, but those who are not convinced about change are not negligible. They are part of the equation and their very reluctance to vote was normally taken, in an older tradition, as acquiescence in the existing arrangements-that is, they did not step forward and seek change by the exercise of their vote. That was a profound and reasonable position to adopt.
	Those who want change have the opportunity in a referendum to vote for it. Those who do not vote have not indicated consent, so the level of consent can be very low indeed in the context of the universal suffrage of our country. Dismissively, the Government say that the outcome is not to be determined by those who do not vote.
	The question that I originally asked those on the Labour Front Bench was about the no figure at which they thought there was legitimacy in the number of those who had voted. I am glad that the Labour Front-Bench team changed its view on that. I am grateful to the noble Lord Rooker for his amendment. I am grateful to those Conservatives, many of whom I have served with and disagreed with over the past 30 years, who stood up and were prepared to be counted. It is appalling that the constitution of Britain is held in the hands of so few people, determined by a golden image, the Liberal-Conservative coalition agreement. The measure does not even reflect what was contained in that agreement, yet we are meddling with our constitution. I urge the House to accept what the Lords have said in their reasoned thoughts.

Kevin Brennan: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I support AV and will vote yes in the referendum.
	Hon. Members might wonder about the Minister's desperate desire to sit down without explaining the amendment that he is asking us to send back to the House of Lords. He knows that in the other place Members rightly think that this House has not properly considered the matter, not least because he hogged all the time yesterday when he gave us an hour for debate. Now we have a mere hour to do the same, and many hon. Members want the opportunity to speak. We still have not considered the matter fully and had a full and proper debate in the House.

Jack Straw: Picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), does my hon. Friend accept that the coalition agreement, or the needs of the Liberal Democrats, has undermined the traditional relationship between this place and the other place? In every previous example that I can think of when we were in government, there would have been a compromise in such a situation. That was the case scores of times, but Ministers lack any authority to grant a compromise.

Kevin Brennan: My right hon. Friend is right. I shall come to that point.
	The Minister is still trying to obfuscate over the threshold and suggest that in some way it would negate the proposals in the Bill. What is unusual about the proposed referendum is that the Government are making it binding. Normally under our constitution, referendums have been advisory to Parliament, not binding in their outcome, and that includes the devolution referendums that were mentioned. The difference in threshold in the Scotland and Wales Bill back in 1979 was that it required 40% of those voting to vote in a certain way.
	All the amendment does is say that if 40% of people fail to vote in total in the referendum, Parliament should reconsider the matter. That is an entirely different and reasonable position and in keeping with the traditions of our constitution that referendums are advisory and not binding, particularly when turnout is so low.
	The amendment that we are sending down to the House of Lords is an insult to the other place. The Minister's puerile explanation of it and the cursory way he dealt with the amendment that he is now asking us to vote for was a complete insult to our intelligence and that of the public.
	I am afraid that when one lifts a stone in this place, procedurally what one sees underneath is sometimes quite unpleasant. Constitutionally, the Minister had to table an amendment, but instead of putting down a serious amendment that attempted to meet the House of Lords somewhere along the line of compromise, he tabled the parliamentary equivalent of a colouring-in book; he had to fill it in with something and so produced this puerile and meaningless amendment. It is an insult to the other place and to our intelligence. They sit there on the Front Bench, hairy man and smooth man, abusing our constitution. The Government should try to meet the other place somewhere on the spectrum of compromise. That would have been the reasonable thing to do and in line with our constitution.
	As someone who will vote yes to AV in the forthcoming referendum and encourage as many people as possible to vote, I think that the idea that this House should not even have the constitutional right to look at the outcome of the referendum if only a very small number of people vote is an insult to democracy.

Eleanor Laing: The arguments of Lord Lamont and his colleagues in the other place are absolutely right, as was everything the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said this evening; I would repeat them in my remarks, but time will not permit me to do so. Sadly, those two rights are incompatible, because the choice before this House this evening is no longer about AV referendums and thresholds. I hate AV and do not want this £100 million referendum. I have always been in favour of a threshold and have said so many times in this House, but that is not the choice before us.
	Sadly, the choice before us is between a Labour Government who ruined this country's economy over 13 years and a coalition Government between the Conservatives and the Liberals that will give the country the stability it needs to recover from the dire economic situation. This referendum on a simple majority, which is stated in the coalition agreement, is a high price to pay for that stability. I, for one, agree to pay it with a very heavy heart.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am slightly troubled by my hon. Friend's remarks, because I was unaware that this had been put down as a confidence motion.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention. It is not a confidence motion, but sadly it is for some of us who have loyalty to the Prime Minister, because we are Conservatives first and foremost and want to see the stable government that is now being provided in every area other than constitutional development. We want to see that stable government and so must support our Prime Minister and his coalition. For some of us, it is done with a heavy heart, but that is the price that the Liberals have sought in order to improve their party political advantage. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton is absolutely right that we ought to have a threshold, but it is too late. The Bill is at its end. Let us just get on with the process of having a referendum and ensure that the British people see it for what it is and do not vote to change our constitution.

William McCrea: With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, for whom I have great respect, I think that that is one of the saddest contributions that she has ever made in this House.
	Earlier today, the Home Secretary came to the House and said that, in the making of laws in this country, Parliament is superior to the courts, but here we are, going for the lowest common denominator-the survival of a coalition Government. In reality, however, that cannot be so. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that, over this issue, for which there is no appetite in the country, the Liberal Democrats would actually pull down the Government? Is she suggesting that, in actual fact, the Deputy Prime Minister would leave his gilded office over such an issue? I suggest that he most certainly would not.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is right; I do not disagree. He is right also about it being my saddest speech. I hated making it, and this is a dreadful situation to be in, but my suggestion was not about the Deputy Prime Minister, but about the Prime Minister, who gave his word that there would be a referendum. I wish that he had not, but he did.

William McCrea: The Prime Minister giving his word to the Deputy Prime Minister is one thing; what counts is the Prime Minister's word to the people of this United Kingdom. Our Prime Minister has no appetite or conviction for this legislation at all. This is a grubby deal simply to keep a party happy, and to keep its Back Benchers happy at this time, but on a major constitutional issue such as this, is that the way in which we run our country? Is that the way in which we are supposed to make our decisions? On a previous occasion, the question was asked, "Would the coalition collapse if this issue were defeated?" The answer, if I can remember, from the Deputy Prime Minister was no, so to try to suggest that it would collapse is not factual at all. If it were, I suggest that it would be blackmail, and we cannot blackmail hon. Members of this House.
	What we are here to ensure is what we, by conviction, believe is best for the country, not the lowest common denominator. So, I ask this question: where is the pressure coming from for this legislation or for AV? It is certainly not coming from the Conservative party, or from the Prime Minister, because he takes the very opposite view. It is simply coming from a few members of the Lib Dems, who believe that, from now on in, they can hold the country to ransom. They hope that, as far as governing is concerned, they will hold the balance of power in any election that follows.
	The hon. Lady had better remember, and let us make no mistake, that if the Lib Dems thought that, in order to keep their ministerial cars after the next election, a coalition would be better with Labour, they would join a coalition with Labour. They are not doing this out of conviction; they are doing it for personal, petty position, and I suggest that that is a ridiculous way of dealing with such a constitutional issue.

Geoffrey Cox: We have but, I think, two minutes- [ Interruption. ] One minute.
	During the time in which this subject has been before the House, I have voted consistently but regretfully against the Government's position. I cannot understand why we voted for thresholds in opposition and are voting against thresholds in government. I cannot understand why a party-the Liberal Democrats-that preaches constitutionalism does not appreciate that constitutional protections and constitutional safeguards, such as minimum thresholds on fundamental-
	 One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, 15  February  ).
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83G),
	That this that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 1 and 8, but proposes amendment (a) in lieu.

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 231.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business without Debate

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (TODAY)

Ordered,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received, any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported, and he has notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.- ( Sir  George  Young  .)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (THURSDAY)

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 17 February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Iain Duncan Smith relating to Pensions and Social Security no later than three hours after their commencement or at 6.00 pm, whichever is the earlier; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.- (Sir George Young.)

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(1 1 )),

Interinstitutional Agreement

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 9193/10, relating to the functioning of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, No. 10346/10 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to a Commission Communication on striking the right balance between the administrative costs of control and the risk of error, and Nos. 5129/11 and 15759/10, relating to a proposal for a Regulation on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the Union and corresponding Opinion of the European Court of Auditors; and supports the Government's approach to ensure that, especially at a time when households and governments across the EU are taking difficult decisions to balance their budgets, EU expenditure must be subject to strict budgetary discipline and appropriate principles of sound financial management.- (Mr  Dunne .)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119( 1 1 )),

EU Budget Review

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15285/10 and Addendum, relating to the EU Budget Review; supports the Government's efforts to reduce the size of the EU budget and deliver savings and value for money for taxpayers, including a substantial reduction in spending on the Common Agricultural Policy; and further supports its efforts to reprioritise expenditure to support growth and competitiveness and tackle climate change and global poverty and to protect the UK's abatement, which remains fully justified due to distortions in EU spending.- (Mr  Dunne .)
	 Question agreed to.

Dawn Primarolo: Under the Order of the House of earlier today, the House is not to be adjourned until any message from the Lords has been received and Royal Assent has been notified to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses. I therefore suspend the sitting to await a message from the Lords. When the House is ready to resume, the bells will be sounded. A warning notice will be put on the Annunciator in the usual way.
	 Sitting suspended (Order, 15 February).
	 On resuming-

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.

PETITIONS

Proposed Sale of Zurbaran Paintings

Helen Goodman: I wish to present a petition from residents of Bishop Auckland, County Durham and the north-east, who believe that the Church Commissioners should not sell Auckland castle or the Zurbaran paintings. Bishops of Durham have lived in Bishop Auckland for 900 years. You cannot take the bishop out of Bishop Auckland.
	I believe that the Church Commissioners have seen the light in regard to the castle, but have yet to see the light in regard to the Zurbaran paintings. Because the matter is so important, there are more than 3,000 signatures to the petition.
	The petition states:
	 The Petition of residents of Bishop Auckland, County Durham and the North East,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Church Commissioners should not sell Auckland Castle or the Zurbaran Paintings.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Church Commissioners not to proceed with the sale.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000888]

Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance

Fiona Mactaggart: I rise to present a petition on behalf of care home residents, children at special boarding schools, and others who are concerned for their welfare. I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), who have also supported the petition.
	The petition declares
	that the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) helps meet some of the extra costs disabled people can face getting around; further declares that the Government plans to stop paying DLA to people living in residential care, which will mean that many people no longer have the money to meet these extra costs and face being trapped at home.
	People will lose £49.85 a week or £18.95 a week, and it will simply mean that they cannot get out.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to keep the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance for people living in residential care.
	I have more than 6,900 signatures on a petition in similar terms. I think that that shows how strongly people feel about the important issue of not being trapped in residential care.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Petition of care home residents and others concerned for their welfare,
	 Declares that the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) helps meet some of the extra costs disabled people can face getting around; further declares that the Government plans to stop paying DLA to people living in residential care, which will mean that many people no longer have the money to meet these extra costs and face being trapped at home.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to keep the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance for people living in residential care.
	  And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000887]

Bob Russell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know how keen you are that Ministers should make announcements to the House first. This evening, BBC television news reported that the Government were planning to abandon their consultation on the Forestry Commission land disposals. Sir, I wonder whether you have received any indication that a Minister will come to the House to make a statement, even at this late hour, or if not tonight, tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: The short answer is no. Many matters are subject to speculation and conjecture, even in our media-a fact of which the hon. Gentleman, on the strength of nearly 14 years' experience in the House, is well aware.

Incinerators (Hertfordshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr Goodwill.)

James Clappison: We come to a subject in which the media do have an interest, particularly in the county of Hertfordshire, because it is a subject of wide concern to the residents of Hertfordshire and, in particular, to my constituents. I am talking about the possible location of an incinerator on a site in Harper lane. That is actually within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who is in her place and is planning to intervene in this debate, but the plan considerably affects my constituents, particularly those in the community of Radlett.
	Waste management is a matter for Hertfordshire county council, as it is for other county councils, and it has decisions to take on the issue. But how those decisions are taken, the process that is followed and the timing of decisions raise wider concerns, and these concerns have been reflected in cases involving other local authorities up and down the country. For that reason alone, Ministers need to examine the way in which local authorities take decisions on waste management. To a layman, the process being followed in Hertfordshire, which has led to the selection of Harper lane as a possible site, seems somewhat odd, if not bizarre.
	Last July, Hertfordshire county council announced that Harper lane was under consideration as one of two possible locations in Hertfordshire for a major waste incinerator to be operated by E.ON. Notwithstanding that, the council launched a consultation last November on a new waste plan. Thus, the consultation began some three or four months after the announcement of this possible location. The following was said on behalf of the county council at the time:
	"We already have a Waste Plan for the county, but this is now out of date and needs to be reviewed. The new plan, which will cover the period 2011-2026, will set out the county council's policies and proposals for the future annual treatment of three million tonnes of waste. This includes identifying areas that may have the potential to accommodate waste facilities as well as safeguarding existing facilities."
	That raises the question: what was the point of the consultation undertaken by the council, given that it had already announced that the Harper lane site was one of two possible locations for the incinerator? The council had already narrowed its choice of site down to just two in Hertfordshire.
	The question of where this all fits into the Government's strategy also arises, because last June my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced a major waste policy review, which was to examine
	"what policies are needed to reduce the amount of waste generated and to maximise reuse and recycling, while also considering how waste policies affect local communities, individual households and businesses."
	The review is considering the role of energy from waste, and I understand that its preliminary results will be published by the Department in 2011. Yet by that time, Hertfordshire county council will be a very long way down the road on implementing its plans and may even have appointed a preferred bidder to deal with its waste incineration.
	So my question to the Minister is: should a county council undertake such a course when a Government consultation is under way and may produce results that are at odds with the course taken by the county council? In respect of both the council's own consultation, which was announced hard on the heels of a decision on possible locations for the site, and the Government's consultation, which was still taking place when that announcement was made, there would seem to me, as a layman, to be obvious prematurity in the council's decision to narrow the choice of sites down to two, including the Harper lane site.
	That is not the only strange aspect of the process being followed by the county council, because in October 2008 the council submitted an outline business case to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that enabled it to obtain £115 million of private finance initiative credits. The Harper lane site was not the reference site for that bid, nor, as I understand it, was it in the plans of the four shortlisted bidders with an energy-from-waste proposal. Notwithstanding that, Harper lane emerged, out of the blue, as one of two shortlisted sites last July. In June of this year, if not before, the county council is set to announce its preferred bidder and site.
	Up to that point, there will have been no opportunity for public consultation about the emergence of Harper lane as a site. Indeed, in the process that has been followed, the public could be said to have been kept in the dark because there is essentially no public information on why Harper lane was chosen as a second potential incinerator site. It does not fit with the stated criteria of Hertfordshire county council for a number of reasons, including the fact that the site is in the green belt and has poor main road access, being located close to a notorious traffic congestion blackspot.
	There are also very serious environmental issues relating to the Harper lane site, which will become apparent in due course. Local people have had no opportunity to have their say on any of this. As a strong supporter of the Localism Bill and the localism principle, I am tempted to ask the Minister how this all fits in with the concept of localism. Of course, before a final decision on the location of the incinerator site can be taken, a separate planning process will have to be conducted by Hertfordshire county council and presumably local people will then have a say. That will come only after the county council has appointed a preferred bidder for the preferred site and presumably entered into some sort of legal relationship with the preferred bidder.
	Doubtless, Hertfordshire county council will be scrupulous in observing the requirements of the planning process, but, to say the least, how can this appear fair to the lay observer and to interested local residents? Would not they be entitled to conclude that the process is flawed? Many residents all over Hertfordshire might want to ask whether there should be an incinerator at all and whether incineration is the most environmentally friendly process in all the circumstances. Certainly, the assumptions being made about incineration in this case seem to be unambitious when it comes to recycling and waste minimisation in both of which Hertfordshire has a good record. Let it be said that Hertfordshire is a green council with a very good record on recycling and is very good at stimulating environmental awareness. The recycling and composting rate for Hertfordshire is in excess of the national rate and Hertfordshire is on course to achieve a rate of recycling 50% of all household waste by 2013 if not before.

Jim Shannon: Is it possible that if a number of people were unhappy with the application and objected to it through the planning application process, the planning authority could say no to it and that concerns could be addressed at that stage?

James Clappison: That is possible, but by that time Hertfordshire county council would already have a preferred bidder and might have entered into a legal relationship with it, so it would, in a way, be judging its own cause in the eyes of local people. There would then be a question of whether it could take that decision and be seen to be a disinterested party, which is very important to the planning process. That is a very strange process to follow.
	Up to this point, even before we reach any of those considerations, there has been no opportunity for local people to have their say, no opportunity for full ventilation of the environmental issues at stake and no opportunity for the case against incineration to be put-the case in favour of more recycling and other environmentally friendly ways of dealing with waste. Neither, it seems, has there been any opportunity thus far for a consultation on a full environmental impact assessment. Local people are aware of a number of serious environmental concerns about the Harper lane site, including the fact that it will be on an inner groundwater source protection zone and the fact that it is a close neighbour of the Wildlife Trust's nature reserve of Broad Colney lakes and of Hounds Wood. In the eyes of many local people, the development would be highly damaging to the local environment and could hardly be more unsuitable on environmental traffic and local infrastructure grounds.
	Local people have come together under the auspices of the Watling incinerator group, known as WING, to put the very compelling case against such a development, but should they not have already had the opportunity to put their case formally at an earlier stage to help shape decisions and to participate in genuine consultation, so that the process appears to be one in which people have had a chance to have their say? The process appears to be open to the many questions being asked about it.

Anne Main: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) on introducing this important debate at this late hour. As he observed, the site in question is in my constituency, but it is on the edge and much of the traffic and other impacts will affect his constituency.
	My poor old constituency is in the same corner of the county that only recently was under threat from a rail freight interchange. One of the arguments against that was that fact that lorries access the Harper lane site, the very part of the county that the county council said at the time was particularly heavily congested and unsuitable for having more traffic. That was a really strong argument. The half a lane of road available in the area is now one of the main rat runs to escape problems on the M25 and M1.
	I visited the site in question about 18 months ago, or it might have been two years now-time is flying. I was aware then of an aspiration to have an incinerator on the site. It is already a gravel working site and there is recycling there. It is heavily utilised, and access for lorries is compromised. At that time, we were aware that there was concern, particularly because of the previous Government's landfill directives, about the great pressure on Hertfordshire to deal with its waste through a new incinerator.
	What concerns me, like my hon. Friend, is the lack of transparency in the process. Whispers and rumours abound that we must not upset a Minister in another corner of Hertfordshire, or that some deal has been stitched up. If we are to give the lie to local people's worries, we need a transparent process that they can buy into and have a degree of faith in.
	My hon. Friend mentioned a particularly important aquifer. The whole of Hertfordshire is characterised by chalk streams, aquifers with a potentially very big drain on them because of the sheer number of people living near them, and low rainfall. On top of that, not so long ago there was a big disaster at Buncefield, which has severely compromised another of our aquifers. That watercourse is still undergoing monitoring for the long-term impacts of PFOS-perfluorooctane sulfonate-as a result of the Buncefield disaster. We in Hertfordshire are extremely concerned that the environmental impact of anything else that goes on in our environmentally sensitive area must be taken into account.
	Plenty of people in St Albans, and I know in my hon. Friend's constituency as well, say that the particulates coming from lorries travelling in and out of the Harper lane site, the potential compromising of an aquifer and the concern about pollution from lorries queuing through Park Street village and into Radlett will compromise an already congested area and add to the health concerns that residents already have. Those concerns were profoundly expressed when both of us were fighting the rail freight interchange.
	We should ensure that the public do not have any hint that there is a stitched-up deal done behind closed doors. They should not have to have any worries about whether a different site has greater potential value to a council as housing development land, and whether the council will therefore sacrifice what it sees as a scrubby bit of green belt somewhere else.
	The Harper lane site is important, and it already delivers a lot to Hertfordshire through recycling and gravel extraction. It gives a lot, and it does not need to give any more. It is grossly unfair to expect one corner of the county, on the edge of my hon. Friend's constituency and mine, to deliver so much more than others, without people having had any say about whether it is the best place to put an incinerator, if we are to have one at all.
	I do not have a particular concern about incinerators per se. I used to have the waste portfolio when I was a district councillor, and I visited incinerator sites. They are very well run if they are well sited, but I do not believe that Harper lane is the site on which to put an incinerator. It is already a compromised site and a rat run, and it is heavily utilised by lorries. To have waste going into the area to be incinerated as well would be a blow too far and cause further concerns about aquifers.
	I should like the Minister to address in his comments the potential for a delay in the scheme, should it come through, in the interests of localism and because of concerns about the environmental impact. Local people should not have to feel that it is another scheme being railroaded past them. They cheered when we had a change of Government, because they felt that it was the end of railroaded schemes. Now there is potential for a scheme that is seen to be a done deal.
	Let us have transparency, localism and a fair say for the local community. Let us say that this is not the right site for a number of environmental reasons. We need to explore those reasons, not pay lip service to them in a dashed-through consultation, all in a bid to find a waste site to consume what will probably be waste from other areas, not just Hertfordshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, we do a pretty good job of recycling our waste in Hertfordshire. We do not need to import other people's rubbish.

Richard Benyon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) on securing a debate of such importance to his constituents. I also congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on the passion with which they spoke. As I am sure they are aware, this subject would normally come under the remit of my noble Friend Lord Henley, but I have none the less been very interested in the issues raised in this evening's debate. This Government have pledged to be the greenest ever. That is not an aspiration; it is an imperative. We have also pledged to devolve decision making as much as possible from the central to the local level. It is in the context of those two pledges that I welcome the chance to respond to this debate and the concerns that have been raised.
	We need to rebuild our economy, and we need the new economy to be sustainable. It can be sustainable only if it is green, and a green economy is a zero-waste economy. That does not mean that there will be absolutely no waste-we are realistic-but it does mean that resources are fully valued, economically and environmentally. It also means that one person's waste is another person's resource. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, the Government are currently conducting a thorough review of our waste policy. We are due to report in the spring, so I shall not seek to pre-empt our findings today. Nevertheless, the recovery of energy from certain wastes has a role to play in moving us towards a zero-waste economy.
	A green economy means generating renewable energy. We have tough targets for that, with 15% of energy required to be from renewable sources by 2020. We need an energy mix to meet our energy needs and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Recovering energy from waste is part of that. Waste can be a renewable source of energy, offsetting the fossil fuels that would otherwise have been burned and reducing methane emissions from landfills. That offers a net climate change benefit. I have not forgotten that this debate is about incinerators, but it is important to emphasise that recovering energy from waste can be achieved by using many different technologies, of which incineration is only one. There is no silver bullet, but incineration is one of the many means available for meeting our renewable energy needs.
	My hon. Friend has used this debate to raise his constituents' concerns, just as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans raised her constituents' concerns so ably. The Watling incinerator group-a group of committed local people-is understandably worried about how incinerators might affect local air quality and the natural environment, and about the health of communities in the vicinity of the proposed incinerator. I must emphasise that all modern waste incinerators are subject to stringent pollution controls. Modern incinerators must comply with the waste incineration directive, which sets strict emission limits for pollutants. The Environment Agency will not grant the permits required for an incinerator to operate if a facility is not compliant with the directive.

Anne Main: That is why I said I had not set my face against incinerators. I have visited some incinerator sites and I am aware of exactly what the Minister says. However, it is the location of the sites and the access to them, along with the lorries and the pollution that they generate, that also need to be taken into consideration.

Richard Benyon: I entirely accept the points that my hon. Friend raises, and I am of a similar mind.
	Studies have failed to establish any convincing link between emissions from incinerators and adverse effects on public health. In 2009, the Health Protection Agency reviewed the existing evidence on public health and incinerators. It concluded, on reviewing the existing evidence, that any effect on people's health from incinerator emissions was likely to be so small as to be undetectable. It affirmed that adverse health effects from modern, well-regulated waste incinerators did not pose a significant threat to public health.
	This debate is also about communities, and we need to meet the challenges at local level. My hon. Friends will be aware that I am unable to comment on the specifics of this particular application, as it is currently subject to a competitive tender process, and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment. What I can say is that vigorous debate within a community is healthy, and necessary in order to ensure that the right choices are made in each community.
	In these debates, we need to be alive to the facts that all communities produce waste and that responsibility must be taken for dealing with it in a way that best balances the needs of the community and the environment. Our aim is to allow those who are best placed to make decisions to take them in a balanced and informed way, with as little red tape as possible. A reformed planning system will be underpinned by the Localism Bill. This will create a less bureaucratic, more decentralised and more collaborative process and will help to build the big society by radically transforming the relationships between central Government, local government, communities and individuals.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, the Government are also undertaking a review of waste policy, which is looking at all aspects of policy development and delivery in England, including the possible role of energy from waste and related infrastructure needs. However, it has never been the intention that the review should prohibit any particular type of technology or take any decisions that would have a direct impact on individual projects. The waste review will report in May this year. Hertfordshire county council will have to decide how this timetable impacts on the progress of its own plans, but I do not believe that its actions in any way undermine the waste review.
	To put us on the road to a zero-waste economy, we need to manage all our waste according to the waste hierarchy. The hierarchy involves an environmental order of preference for the outcomes of waste. After the preferable options of preventing, reusing and recycling waste, there is recovery and, finally, landfill-the least desirable environmental outcome. The order of the hierarchy can be changed for individual waste types, if it can be proved that that makes environmental sense over the life-cycle of a product. Generally, however, the hierarchy works, and that means keeping waste out of landfill whenever possible. Gone are the days when we do not worry about putting waste in holes in the ground. We know that biodegradable waste rots in landfill, giving off methane, which is a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans made some very good points about the impact on water in aquifers. That is fundamental to our concerns about landfill.
	Following the logic of the waste hierarchy, it is reasonable to ask whether, if we are burning waste, we need not recycle it. Worse, might we be providing incentives specifically not to reduce, reuse or recycle before recovering energy from waste? Those are valid concerns that the Government's waste review is setting out to address. But we know from other countries that recycling and energy from waste can co-exist. In the Netherlands, for example, recycling rates are around 65%, alongside 33% energy from waste. The picture is similar in Denmark and Sweden.
	We are doing this not only because it makes sense but because it is the law. The waste hierarchy will shortly become UK law through the revised waste framework directive. We have legal targets to keep waste out of landfill, and the Climate Change Act 2008 rightly sets tough targets for every sector of the economy to contribute to the UK-wide carbon budgets. The waste sector is no exception. All those obligations will help our drive towards growing a zero-waste, green economy.
	I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere and for St Albans will continue to make their case passionately on behalf of their constituents. They will find that they are able to engage in a process in which they will be listened to, and in which they will be part of the decision-making process. That is what this Government are about. We want them to be part of the process, rather than feeling that they are having these developments inflicted on them with no ability to say anything.
	I congratulate my hon. Friends on the high quality of the debate and on the passion with which they have raised this issue. I hope that I have gone some way towards explaining why we are confident that incinerators do not pose a threat to public health, and why our policy on incinerators is part of, rather than in opposition to, our being the greenest Government ever. I hope I have been able to assure them that, as a Government, we are committed to giving power to communities such as those in their part of Hertfordshire.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Immigration

That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 474, Noes 23.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Terrorist Finance Tracking Program

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 11048/10 relating to a draft agreement, No. 11173/10, relating to a draft Council Decision on the signature of the agreement, and No. 11172/10, relating to a draft Council Decision on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program; agrees that the programme is an extremely important tool in the global counter-terrorism effort, providing valuable contributions to numerous high profile cases; and notes that the programme has achieved an appropriate balance between counter-terrorism and data protection.
	 The House divided: Ayes 484, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to.